IE*  ICtbrtfi 


SEYMOUR  DURST 


'When  you  leave,  please  leave  this  book 

Because  it  has  been  said 
"Ever'thincj  comes  t'  him  who  waits 

Except  a  loaned  book.'' 


Avery  Architectural  and  Fine  Arts  Library 
Gift  of  Seymour  B.  Durst  Old  York  Library 


THE 
HISTORY  OF 

The  Burr  Portraits 

Their  Origin,  Their  Dispersal  And  Their  Reassemblage 

By 

JOHN  E.  STILLWELL,  M.D. 
•H-a  ■=»*■ 


For  Private  Distribution 
Edition  Limited  to  One  Hundred  and  Twenty-Five  Copies 


1928 


e 

SS 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2014 


https://archive.org/details/historyofburrporOOstil 


DEDICATED 
TO 

SAMUEL  H.  WANDELL  AND  MEADE  MINNIGERODE 
THE  TWO  CAPABLE  AND  TRUTHFUL  HISTORIANS 

OF 

COL.  AARON  BURR 


CONTENTS 


Page 


Introductory 

Pen  Portraits  of  Colonel  Burr   1 

The  Bowrowsons  and  The  Burr  Portraits       ..........  3 

The  Gilrert  Stuart  Portrait  of  Colonel  Burr  and  Its  Copy  by  Vanderlyn       ....  8 

The  Trumbull  Portrait  of  Colonel  Burr   11 

The  Two  Sharples'  Portraits  of  Colonel  Burr       .........  12 

The  1796  St.  Memin  Portrait  of  Colonel  Burr   18 

The  1805  St.  Memin  Portrait  of  Colonel  Burr       .........  21 

The  1802  Vanderlyn  Portrait  of  Colonel  Burr   22 

The  Gridley  Engraving  of  Colonel  Burr   24 

The  1802-4  Vanderlyn  Portrait  of  Colonel  Burr   25 

The  1809  Vanderlyn  Portrait  of  Colonel  Burr      .........  27 

The  Inman  Portrait  of  Colonel  Burr   29 

The  Vandyck  Portrait  of  Colonel  Burr  ...........  30 

Casts  and  Busts   34 

Burr's  Watches   41 

The  Gilbert  Stuart  Portrait  of  Theodosia  Burr   44 

The  1796  Vanderlyn  Portrait  of  Theodosia  Burr   47 

Vanderlyn's  Kingston  Portrait  of  Theodosia  Burr        ........  48 

The  1796  St.  Memin  Portrait  of  Theodosia  Burr   49 

The  1802  Vanderlyn  Portrait  of  Theodosia  Burr  Alston       .......  51 

The  1811  Vanderlyn  Portrait  of  Theodosia  Burr  Alston       .......  56 

The  Biays  Crayon  Portrait  of  Theodosia  Burr   58 

The  Nag's  Head  Portrait  of  Theodosia  Burr  Alston      ........  59 

Vanderlyn's  Unfinished  Portrait  of  Theodosia  Burr  Alston         ......  63 

Colonel  Burr's  Natural  Children  and  The  Burr  Divorce   64 

The  Jumel  Portraits   70 

Obituary  of  Madam  Jumel   74 

The  Blennerhassett  Miniatures     ............  80 

The  Portrait  of  Mary  Woolstonecraft   84 

Vanderlyn's  Self  Portrait  and  His  Artistry          .........  85 

Personal  Interviews       ..............  91 

Miscellaneous  Notes   102 


Introductory 


There  are  two  reasons  for  compiling  these  notes — first,  and  mainly  to  save  what  I  alone 
know;  second,  to  correct  that  which  others  claim  to  know.  To  Pidgin,  the  enthusiastic,  if 
somewhat  sketchy  historian  of  Colonel  Burr  and  his  daughter,  I  wrote,  October  10th,  1901, 
the  following  letter,  which  he  reproduced  in  his  history  of  Theodosia,  page  432 : 

"As  I  lay  aside  your  book,  'Blennerhassett,''  I  determine  to  thank  you  for  your  defence 
of  Aaron  Burr,  and  to  express  the  hope  that  I  may  have  the  pleasure  of  meeting  you  before 
long.  Colonel  Burr's  mother-in-law  was  Ann  Stillwell,  she  who  successively  married  Mr. 
Bartow  and  Mr.  De  Visme,  and  who  resided  with  her  daughter,  Mrs.  Prevost,  at  the  time 
of  her  marriage  to  Mr.  Burr.  In  my  family,  where  his  life  was  well  known,  he  had  his  detrac- 
tors, yet  some  champions.  Among  the  latter  I  class  myself.  The  pursuit  of  information  re- 
lating to  him  and  his  daughter  brought  me  in  contact  with  those  who  had  known  him  per- 
sonally, or  those  who  were  otherwise  exceptionally  informed.  His  last  law  partner  was  Colonel 
William  Dusenbury  Craft,  who  was  in  his  extreme  age  under  my  professional  care.  His 
admiration  for  Burr  and  his  knowledge  of  him  were  equally  great.  The  authoress,  Mrs.  Ann  S. 
Stephens,  who  befriended  Mrs.  Webb,  his  last  friend,  and  who  succeeded  to  Burr's  effects 
through  Mrs.  Webb;  the  Bowrowson  family,  who  served  Burr  in  the  capacity  of  coachman 
and  cook,  and  who  advanced  him  money  when  indicted  by  the  Grand  Jury  for  the  killing 
of  Hamilton,  and  who  subsequently  kept  his  effects ;  Mrs.  Minthorne  Tompkins,  who  Burr, 
in  his  will,  made  guardian  of  one  of  the  two  daughters  he  names;  the  family  of  his  illegitimate 
son,  Aaron  Columbus  Burr;  members  of  the  Edwards  family;  all  these,  and  others,  I  have  met 
and  gleaned  from.  The  result  has  been  much  information,  and  the  original  portraits  of  Burr 
and  his  daughter,  Theodosia,  to  the  number  of  five,  and  photographs  of  others,  to  the  number 
of  eight,  as  well  as  one  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Blennerhassett.  I  can  conceive  it  would  interest  you 
to  see  them,  and  surely  it  would  please  me  to  show  them  to  one  who  has  so  kindly  spoken 
for  the  originals." 

Twenty-seven  years  have  elapsed  since  then,  and  I  have  added  much  to  my  knowledge 
of  the  Burr  portraits.  In  attempting  to  put  it  into  readable  shape,  I  have  tried  to  confine  my- 
self solely  to  the  art  aspect  of  the  subject,  and  to  avoid  touching  upon  the  personal  history 
of  this  much  misunderstood  American,  and  his  admirable  daughter.  This  now  falls  to  the  lot 
of  that  profound  student  of  Burr's  career,  Samuel  H.  Wandell,  Esquire,  of  New  York  City, 
whose  life  work,  in  collaboration  with  Mr.  Meade  Minnigerode,  has  been  to  compile  the 
story  of  The  True  Burr,  which,  as  told  by  their  critical  and  erudite  pens,  reveals  to  us  a  man 
slandered,  betrayed  and  martyred,  one  whose  defence,  even  by  his  friends,  has  hitherto  been 
inadequate  if  not  lukewarm. 

The  vicissitudes  of  art  make  a  story  as  old  as  art  itself.  The  vicissitudes  of  Burr's  art 
is  a  strange,  pathetic  tale  of  happiness  and  sorrow,  success  and  misfortune,  during  which  his 
paintings  were  accumulated  and  dispersed,  to  be  again  reassembled.  Valuable  now,  as  pos- 
sessing historical  and  art  worth,  they  were  once,  because  of  Burr's  unpopularity  and  the 
recent  date  of  their  production,  considered  worthless.  Few,  if  any,  cared  for  their  whereabouts 
and  this  indifference  abided  for  years.  I  have  never  been  able  to  determine  the  number  of 
portraits  that  were  painted  of  Burr  and  his  daughter,  but  they  were  many.  They  apparently 


were  both  willing  sitters,  and  the  supply  of  limners  as  well  as  their  assiduity  was  great. 
Perhaps  portrait  painting  was  then  one  of  the  indulgences  and  pastimes  of  the  rich.  The 
insufficient  description  of  the  original  paintings,  the  frequency  of  copies  ordered,  but  perhaps 
not  executed,  and  their  oft  changing  ownership,  made,  for  a  while  at  least,  the  location  of 
them  difficult  and  their  identification  nearly  impossible.  When  the  list  was  apparently  com- 
plete, new  ones  appeared  and  the  end  was  again  afar. 

The  Burr  paintings  group  themselves  mainly  into  two  collections — one  acquired  before 
Burr's  flight,  and  the  other  after.  I  know  of  seventeen  in  the  first  group,  including  the  Indian 
Red  Jacket  and  the  diplomat  Talleyrand;  Adet  and  Gallatin  by  the  youthful  Vanerlyn;  his 
father,  The  Rev.  Aaron  Burr,  and  his  mother  by  Smybert;  portraits  of  himself  by  Stuart, 
Trumbull,  Sharpies,  St.  Memin  and  Vanderlyn;  portraits  of  his  daughter  Theodosia  by 
Stuart,  Vanderlyn  and  St.  Memin,  and  portraits  of  Natalie  De  Lage  Sumter,  one  a  full  face 
painting  and  another,  the  engraving  by  St.  Memin.  No  doubt  there  were  others,  all  of  which 
adorned  his  home  at  Richmond  Hill,  where  seemingly  every  foreigner  of  distinction,  including 
future  royalty,  who  visited  our  shores,  was  feted  and  addressed  in  his  own  tongue. 

In  the  second  group  I  know  of  twelve,  including  Mary  Woolstonecraft  by  Opie,  the 
Duke  of  Weimar,  Dr.  Gahn,  of  Sweden,  Vanderlyn  painted  by  himself,  Madame  Jumel  by 
Inman,  portraits  of  the  De  Lisles,  progenitors  of  his  natural  son  Aaron  Columbus  Burr,  and 
portraits  of  himself  by  Vanderlyn,  St.  Memin,  Inman  and  Vandyck. 

We  may  even  create  another  group,  one,  which  includes  two  portraits  of  Theodosia, 
belonging  to  the  Alstons,  the  unfinished  portrait  of  Theodosia,  portraits  of  the  Blenner- 
hassetts,  an  additional  likeness  of  Madame  Jumel,  and  a  marble  bust,  a  bronze  statue  and 
the  death  mask  of  Colonel  Burr. 

There  is  a  regrettable  but  unavoidable  repetition  in  some  parts  of  this  compilation,  for 
the  history  of  a  painting  and  an  interview,  occasionally  repeat  parts  of  each  other,  but  both 
are  essential,  the  interview  because  it  is  fuller  and  more  intime. 

To  Messrs.  Harrison  A.  McNear,  Samuel  H.  Wandell,  Meade  Minnigerode,  Walter  F. 
McCaleb,  William  H.  Shelton,  John  C.  Tomlinson,  Dr.  Laporte  and  others,  I  am  grateful 
for  aid,  and  appreciatively  acknowledge  my  obligations. 


Pen  Portraits 


Of 

Aaron  Burr 

HAVE  at  length  been  gratified  with  a  sight  of  the  late  Vice-President,  Aaron 
Burr;  he  arrived  at  this  place  on  the  28th  inst.  from  New  Orleans.  A  few  days 
after,  I  had  the  honor  of  spending  an  evening  in  his  company.  His  stature  is 
about  five  feet  six  inches;  he  is  a  spare,  meager  form,  but  of  an  elegant  sym- 
metry; his  complexion  is  fair  and  transparent;  his  dress  was  fashionable  and 
rich,  but  not  flashy.  He  is  a  man  of  an  erect  and  dignified  deportment;  his  presence  is  com- 
manding; his  aspect  mild,  firm,  luminous  and  impressive.  His  physiognomy  is  of  the  French 
configuration.  His  forehead  is  prominent,  broad,  retreating,  indicative  of  great  expansion  of 
mind,  immense  range  of  thought,  and  amazing  exuberance  of  fancy,  but  too  smooth  and  regu- 
lar for  great  altitude  of  conception,  and  those  original,  eccentric  and  daring  aberrations  of 
superior  genius.  The  eyebrows  are  thin,  nearly  horizontal,  and  too  far  from  the  eye;  his  nose 
is  nearly  rectilinear,  too  slender  between  the  eyes,  rather  inclined  to  the  right  side;  gently 
elevated,  which  betrays  a  degree  of  haughtiness;  too  obtuse  at  the  end  for  great  acuteness  of 
penetration,  brilliancy  of  wit,  or  poignancy  of  satire,  and  too  small  to  sustain  his  ample  and 
capacious  forehead ;  his  eyes  are  of  ordinary  size,  of  a  dark  hazel,  and  from  the  shade  of  his  pro- 
jecting eye-bones  and  brows,  appear  black;  they  glow  with  all  the  ardor  of  venereal  fire,  and 
scintillate  with  the  most  tremulous  sensibility — they  roll  with  the  celerity  and  phrenzy  of 
poetic  fervor,  and  beam  with  the  most  vivid  and  piercing  rays  of  genius.  His  mouth  is  large; 
his  voice  is  manly,  clear  and  melodious;  his  lips  are  thin,  extremely  flexible,  and  when  silent 
gently  closed,  but  opening  with  facility  to  distill  the  honey  which  trickles  from  his  tongue.  His 
chin  is  rather  retreating  and  voluptuous.  To  analyze  his  face  with  physiognomical  scrutiny, 
you  may  discover  many  unimportant  traits,  but  upon  the  first  blush,  or  a  superficial  view, 
they  are  obscured  like  the  spots  in  the  sun,  by  a  radiance  that  dazzles  and  fascinates  the  sight. 

In  company,  Burr  is  rather  taciturn.  When  he  speaks,  it  is  with  such  animation,  with 
such  apparent  frankness  and  negligence  as  to  induce  a  person  to  believe  he  is  a  man  of  guiless 
and  ingenuous  heart,  but  in  my  opinion  there  is  no  human  creature  more  reserved,  mysteri- 
ous, and  inscrutable. 

I  have  heard  a  great  deal  of  Chesterfield  and  the  graces.  Surely  Burr  is  the  epitome — the 
essence  of  them  all;  for  never  were  their  charms  displayed  with  such  potency  and  irresistible 
attraction.  He  seems  passionately  fond  of  female  society,  and  there  is  no  being  better  calcu- 
lated to  succeed  and  shine  in  that  sphere;  to  the  ladies  he  is  all  attention — all  devotion;  in 
conversation  he  gazes  on  them  with  complacency  and  rapture,  and  when  he  addresses  them, 
it  is  with  that  smiling  affability,  those  captivating  gestures,  that  je  ne  sais  quoi,  those  dissol- 
ving looks,  that  soft,  sweet,  and  insinuating  eloquence,  which  takes  the  soul  captive  before  it 

<  1  > 


can  prepare  for  defence.  In  short,  he  is  the  most  perfect  model  of  an  accomplished  gentleman 
that  could  be  framed,  even  by  the  wanton  imagination  of  poetry  or  fiction.  The  above  de- 
scription is  taken  from  a  letter  written  at  Frankfort,  August  30,  1805,  printed  in  The  Port 

Folio,  May  16, 1807.  Petersfield.  Magazine  of  American  History,  December,  1885. 

"Shortly  after  I  came  to  the  city  of  New  York  Aaron  Burr  was  pointed  out  to  me  as  he 
was  slowly  winding  his  way  up  Broadway  between  Chamber  street  and  the  old  theatre  on  the 
City  Hall  side.  I  frequently  afterwards  met  him  in  this  and  other  streets.  He  was  always  an 
object  of  interest,  inasmuch  as  he  had  become  a  historical  character,  somewhat  notoriously 
so.  I  will  attempt  to  describe  his  appearance,  or  rather  how  he  appeared  to  me.  He  was  small, 
thin,  and  attenuated  in  form,  perhaps  a  little  over  five  feet  in  height,  weight  not  much  over 
one  hundred  pounds.  He  walked  with  a  slow,  measured  and  feeble  step,  stooping  consider- 
ably, occasionally  with  both  hands  behind  his  back,  small,  wrinkled  face,  keen,  deep-set,  dark 
eye,  his  hat  set  deep  on  his  head,  the  back  part  sunk  down  to  the  collar  of  the  coat  and  the 
back  brim  somewhat  turned  upwards,  dressed  in  threadbare  black  cloth,  having  the  appear- 
ance of  what  is  known  as  shabby  genteel.  His  countenance  wore  a  melancholy  aspect  as  well  as 
his  whole  appearance  betokened  one  dejected,  forsaken,  forgotten  or  cast  aside  and  conscious 
of  his  position.  He  was  invariably  alone  when  I  saw  him,  except  on  a  single  occasion,  that  was 
on  the  sidewalk  in  Broadway  fronting  what  is  now  the  Astor  House,  standing  talking  very 
familiarly  with  a  young  woman  whom  he  held  by  one  hand.  His  countenance  on  that  occasion 
was  cheerful,  lighted  up  and  bland,  altogether  different  from  what  it  appeared  to  me  when  I 
saw  him  alone  and  in  conversation  with  himself.  In  looking  at  this  fragment  of  humanity  it 
appeared  mysterious  to  me  how  he  could  have  become  famous  in  history,  social  as  well  as 
political,  or  become  noted  for  either  good  or  bad  actions  of  any  sort,  but  again  when  it  is  taken 
into  consideration  that  it  is  not  matter  but  mind  that  gives  the  stamp  and  produces  the  won- 
derful results."  Western  Memorabilia.  Gowans  Catabgue  of  Rare  Books,  No.  24,  New  York, 
1886. 


i  2  } 


The  Bowrowsons 

And  The 
Burr  Portraits 


T  EARLY  becomes  necessary  to  allude  to  a  family  of  the  name  of  Bowrowson, 
one  of  minor  importance  in  Aaron  Burr's  life,  but  conspicuous  in  the  history  of 
the  Burr  portraits.  When  residing  at  Richmond  Hill,  in  the  zenith  of  his  fame, 
Burr  employed  as  his  kitchen  chef,  a  German  by  the  name  of  Anthony  Bow- 
rowson. The  man  was  a  culinary  genius  and  Burr's  dinners  became  celebrated. 
His  wife,  Mrs.  Bowrowson,  was  a  plain,  practical  woman  who  assisted  about  the  house.  They 
were  a  thrifty  pair  and  when  Burr  was  about  to  flee  to  Europe  and  was  sorely  pressed  for 
ready  money,  he  borrowed  it  from  them  and  they  secured  themselves  by  holding  his  personal 
and  household  effects.  To  cancel  their  claim  Burr  made  over  to  them  certain  lots  of  land  in  the 
City,  but  there  still  remained  an  unpaid  balance  for  which  it  was  said  they  took  a  judgment. 
It  is  certain  that  Burr  was  unable  to  completely  repay  them  their  loan,  for  despite  his  oft  re- 
peated requests,  they  held  his  goods,  among  them  a  portrait  of  Theodosia,  his  daughter.  When 
old  Bowrowson  developed  alcoholic  or  senile  dementia,  his  neighbors  whispered  that  it  was 
God's  judgment  upon  him  for  his  cruelty.  While  an  ornament  to  Burr's  home,  these  goods 
greatly  overloaded  the  smaller  house  into  which  the  Bowrowsons  moved,  on  the  west  side  of 
Sullivan  Street,  between  Broome  and  Spring,  where  they  kept  a  smokehouse  and  where  most 
of  the  tilings,  including  terrestrial  globes,  books,  china,  paintings,  etc.,  went  to  the  garret. 
The  paintings  alone  amounted  to  about  twenty  in  number,  and  included  not  only  his  family 
portraits,  but  those  of  distinguished  friends.  Either  before  or  after  his  service  with  Burr,  An- 
thony Bowrowson  kept  a  tavern.  It  lay  in  the  valley  south  of  Richmond  Hill,  and  carried  his 
surname — Bowrowson's  Tavern.  Burr  was  enjoined  by  his  daughter,  when  about  to  set  up 
housekeeping  in  the  South,  to  secure  her  a  cook,  concerning  which  he  wrote:  "You  are  equally 
lucky  with  a  cook.  I  have  had  him  on  trial  a  fortnight  and  he  is  the  best  I  ever  had  in  the 
house  for  cakes,  pastry  and  jimcracks,  far  superior  to  Anthony." 

The  uninteresting  Bowrowsons  are  now  of  necessity  followed,  as  among  them,  in  the 
second  and  fifth  generations,  Burr's  effects  come  to  fight. 

Bowrowson's  family  consisted  of  six  or  more  children:  Anthony,  Christian,  Nicholas,  and 
still  another  son  with  a  lame  leg,  and  two  daughters,  one  of  whom,  Theodosia,  married  Mr. 
Shelburg,  an  artist,  and  a  man  of  good  reputation  and  character.  He,  Shelburg,  for  a  time  at 
least,  resided  at  373  Broadway,  in  New  York  City,  and  some  of  his  work  is  still  existent  in  the 
shape  of  mediocre  landscapes  owned  by  David  E.  Hill,  of  Keyport,  N.  J.  To  this  daughter, 
Theodosia  Shelburg,  upon  the  death  of  her  parents,  apparently  passed  most,  if  not  all,  of 
Burr's  effects,  and  these  she  took  with  her  upon  her  migration  to  New  Jersey;  and  with  her 


i  3  } 


they  remained  until  rescued,  in  a  fast  perishing  state,  by  Judge  Odgen  Edwards.  Theodosia 
Shelburg  was  the  mother  of  several  children: 

(1)  Joseph  A.  Shelburg,  who  died  along  in  years,  at  Hazlet,  New  Jersey,  unmarried. 

(2)  Harriet  A.  Shelburg,  who  became  the  wife  of  David  E.  Hill,  of  Hazlet,  New  Jersey,  a 
widower  with  children;  she  had  no  issue;  I  called  upon  her  at  the  hotel,  run  by  her  husband, 
opposite  the  Hazlet  Station,  in  the  Summer  of  1882. 

(3)  Eliza  Shelburg,  who  died  a  spinster. 

(4)  Louisa  Shelburg,  who  married,  first,  Mr.  Kennedy,  perhaps  an  artist,  and  second,  Mr. 
Pool.  By  her  first  husband,  alone,  did  she  have  issue.  Her  children  were: 

(a)  William  Kennedy,  whose  widow,  in  1923,  was  living  between  Delaware  Water  Gap 
and  Bushkill  Falls,  where  she  ran  a  boarding  house,  and  had  in  her  possession  the  knife  box 
that  Burr  used  during  the  Revolution. 

(b)  Edward  Joseph  Kennedy. 

(c)  Emma  Kennedy,  who  married  Edward  Shelden. 

(d)  Cornelia  Kennedy,  who  married  Julius  Van  Meerbeek  (or  Meerbeck).  This  name  Van 
Meerbeek  should  be  emphasized,  for  it  was  from  Cornelia  Kennedy  Meerbeek's  son  that  I 
obtained  the  1802,  portrait  of  Colonel  Burr,  still  in  my  possession,  which  establishes  the  fact 
that  Theodosia  Bowrowson  Shelburg  either  retained,  or  had  distributed,  certain  of  the  Burr 
portraits  in  her  family,  and  Judge  Ogden  Edwards  did  not  secure  them  all  in  his  swoop. 

The  recovery  of  some  of  the  Burr  portraits  is  entertainly  told  in  the  Proceedings  of  the 
New  Jersey  Historical  Society,  for  1865-66,  Vol.  X,  page  170.  Substitute  the  name  Bowrowson 
for  Keaser,  and  cut  out  the  statement  of  extreme  poverty,  and  the  story  will  conform  to  facts. 
Before  proceeding  with  the  Ogden  Edwards  narrative,  it  might  be  well  to  here  state  that 
young  Van  Meerbeek  claimed,  in  December,  1881,  that  his  family  still  had  the  only  existing 
portrait  of  Theodosia.  This  statement  is,  of  course,  patent  error,  but  there  still  may  remain,  in 
some  of  the  ramifications  of  his  family,  an  early  portrait  of  that  distinguished  woman.  (See 
also  Chapter  on  the  Vanderlyn  Portraits). 

The  Portrait  of  Aaron  Burr  presented  to  this  Society  by  John  Chetwood,  Esq.,  was  found 
in  Milburn,  in  this  County. 

The  relatives  of  Aaron  Burr,  Senior,  President  of  Princeton  College,  knew  that  his  son, 
prior  to  his  breaking  up  his  house  in  New  York  City,  had  a  portrait  of  his  father  and  mother, 
but  they  had  disappeared,  and  although  much  sought  for  could  not  be  found.  It  was  reported, 
however,  that  Aaron  Burr  had  entrusted  them,  with  other  family  effects,  to  the  care  of  a  man 
by  the  name  of  Keaser,  who  for  some  years  had  been  his  body  servant. 

Judge  Ogden  Edwards,  of  the  city  of  New  York,  who  was  a  relative  of  Aaron  Burr  on  his 
mother's  side,  had  for  many  years  made  diligent  inquiries  for  this  Keaser,  but  could  get  no 
trace  of  him. 

He  had  subsequently  given  up  the  hope  of  obtaining  any  clue  to  the  lost  portraits,  and 
ceased  his  efforts,  when,  in  1847,  passing  through  Pearl  Street  in  the  city  of  New  York,  he 
heard  a  person  call  to  a  drayman  "Keaser  come  here  with  your  cart  and  take  these  boxes." 
The  Judge's  curiosity  was  excited  and  he  immediately  turned  to  the  drayman  as  he  drove  up 

i  4  } 


to  the  store  and  inquired  if  his  name  was  Keaser.  He  said  it  was.  The  Judge  then  informed 
him  that  for  some  time  he  had  been  trying  to  find  a  man  by  the  name  of  Keaser,  who  was  in 
the  employ  of  Aaron  Burr  at  the  time  he  lived  in  New  York.  The  drayman  replied  that  his 
father  did  for  some  years  live  with  Aaron  Burr,  but  he  had  no  recollection  of  it,  as  it  was  be- 
fore he  was  born,  but  he  had  heard  his  father  often  speak  of  Aaron  Burr  and  of  his  living  with 
him,  and  that  his  father  had  been  dead  for  some  years.  The  Judge  asked  him  if  his  father  had 
any  portraits  of  Aaron  Burr.  The  drayman  said  he  never  knew  of  any,  but  his  sister  who  was 
much  older  than  he,  and  who  was  a  girl  at  the  time  his  father  lived  with  Aaron  Burr,  might 
give  him  some  information  on  the  subject,  and  stated  where  his  sister  lived. 

The  Judge  immediately  started  in  pursuit  of  the  sister  and  found  her  in  a  small  room  in 
one  of  the  many  alleys  inhabited  by  the  poor  in  the  crowded  streets  and  alleys  of  the  city ;  and 
was  informed  by  her  that  her  father  had  been  in  the  employ  of  Aaron  Burr,  and  when  Burr 
fled  from  the  city  he  left  a  great  many  things  with  her  father,  and  that  she  remembered  seeing 
some  portraits,  but  what  her  father  had  done  with  them  she  could  not  tell,  and  referred  the 
Judge  to  an  older  sister  who  was  married  and  lived  in  the  "Short  Hills  of  New  Jersey." 

The  Judge  made  many  inquiries  of  the  woman,  but  she  evidently  was  unwilling  to  give 
him  any  information  as  to  what  had  been  left  by  Aaron  Burr  with  her  father,  or  what  he  had 
done  with  the  property  entrusted  to  him.  She,  however,  stated  that  her  father  had  been  poor 
for  some  time  before  his  death  and  the  Judge  concluded  that  he  had  disposed  of  it  for  his 
support. 

As  the  Judge  had  never  heard  of  the  "Short  Hills  of  New  Jersey,"  he  inquired  of  the 
woman  where  the  Short  Hills  of  New  Jersey  were,  and  she  being  really  ignorant  or  not  willing 
to  give  the  information,  said  she  did  not  know — that  all  she  knew  about  them  was,  that  her 
sister  and  her  husband  several  years  before  came  into  New  York  to  see  her,  and  stated  that 
they  lived  in  the  Short  Hills  of  New  Jersey. 

As  no  further  information  could  be  obtained  from  her,  the  Judge  determined  to  find  these 
Hills,  and  soon  after  came  to  Newark  and  called  on  John  Chetwood,  Esq.,  who  was  then  prac- 
ticing law  in  this  city  to  learn  their  location.  On  being  told  that  they  were  but  about  eight 
miles  from  Newark,  he  informed  Mr.  Chetwood  of  his  object  and  proposed  taking  a  ride 
thither  in  pursuit  of  the  lost  portraits.  Mr.  Chetwood  accepted  the  invitation,  and  they  rode 
out  to  Springfield  and  were  directed  to  the  Hills  on  the  west  of  the  village,  and  after  many 
inquiries  they  found  the  residence  of  the  elder  sister  of  Keaser,  which  was  a  small  building 
with  a  lean-to,  having  but  one  room  and  an  unfurnished  low  garret. 

On  entering  the  house  the  Judge  recognized  two  portraits  which  hung  on  the  wall  as  those 
of  Aaron  Burr  and  of  Theodosia,  his  daughter,  who  married  Governor  Ashton  of  South  Caro- 
lina. The  only  persons  in  the  house  were  the  sister  of  Keaser  they  were  seeking,  and  several 
small  children.  They  evidently  were  very  poor.  After  some  conversation  with  the  woman  the 
Judge  offered  the  woman  $5  for  the  pictures.  She  at  once  accepted  it.  The  Judge  asked  her  if 
she  had  any  more,  she  said  she  had  not,  when  a  little  boy  said  to  his  mother  there  were  two  in 
the  garret  that  'baby  used  to  play  with.'  The  woman  said  yes,  but  they  were  good  for  nothing. 
But  at  the  request  of  the  Judge  she  sent  the  boy  up  to  get  them,  telling  him  one  was  in  the 
window  where  the  glass  was  broken  out. 

{  5  } 


The  boy  went  up  the  ladder  which  led  to  the  garret  and  brought  down  two  pieces  of  can- 
vas which  had  been  in  oval  frames.  On  spreading  them  out  the  Judge  at  once  recognized  them 
as  the  lost  portraits  of  President  Burr  and  his  wife.  The  portrait  of  President  Burr  was  much 
defaced,  one  of  the  eyes  was  gone,  the  paint  having  evidently  been  picked  off  the  canvas  in 
several  places,  and  in  other  places  broken  off  by  folding.  These  two  portraits  the  Judge  also 
purchased. 

The  only  information  the  woman  could  or  would  give,  was  that  they  were  pictures  her 
father  had  given  to  her  and  she  kept  them  for  some  time,  and  the  Judge  left  with  the  prizes  he 
had  for  years  been  seeking. 

On  brushing  off  the  dust  they  were  found  to  be  very  fine  paintings.  Several  artists  have 
judged  them  to  have  been  painted  by  Stuart.  The  portrait  of  President  Burr  is  the  only  one 
known  to  have  been  taken.  The  portrait  of  Theodosia  was  a  most  beautiful  painting,  repre- 
senting a  woman  just  budding  into  life  in  full  freshness  of  perfect  beauty. 

The  Judge  had  the  portrait  of  President  Burr  carefully  cleaned  and  repaired,  and  from  it 
was  engraved  the  only  likeness  we  now  have  of  President  Burr. 

As  the  Judge  had  a  portrait  of  Aaron  Burr,  the  son,  he  presented  the  one  they  found  to 
Mr.  Chetwood,  who,  in  1849,  on  leaving  for  California  left  it  with  me,  to  be  presented  in  his 
name  to  the  Society,  and  as  his  gift  it  has  been  an  interesting  ornament  to  our  room. 

I  have  given  these  statements  as  they  were  related  to  me  by  Mr.  Chetwood  at  the  time 
the  portraits  were  found. 

(Communication  from  David  A.  Hayes,  Esq.,  respecting  the  Original  Portrait  of  Aaron 
Burr,  in  the  possession  of  the  New  Jersey  Historical  Society). 

The  following  courteous  letter  from  Mr.  Mooney  is  instructive.  It  tells  us  that  he  painted 
a  copy  of  the  original  Reverend  Aaron  Burr's  portrait,  and  refers  me  to  Dr.  McLean  for  the 
sadly  abused  original.  What  has  become  of  this  original  portrait  of  the  Reverend  Aaron  Burr 
and  that  of  his  wife  I  know  not.  Perhaps  some  of  the  authorities  of  Princeton  College  would 
know  of  the  whereabouts  of  the  portrait  of  the  Reverend  Aaron  Burr  and  some  of  the  Edwards 
family  might  know  of  the  whereabouts  of  the  portrait  of  his  wife. 

"Upper  Red  Hook 
Dec  26/82 

Dr.  J.  E.  Stillwell 
My  dear  Sir 

I  take  the  first  opportunity  to  acknowledge  your  favor  of  7  inst.  which  I  found  waiting 
my  return  home — had  it  arrived  in  due  time  (as  I  did  not  leave  until  the  12th)  I  should  gladly 
have  called  on  you  in  the  City ;  which  would  have  been  more  to  our  mutual  satisfaction — I 
painted  a  portrait  of  President  Burr,  for  Princeton  College  from  a  dilapidated  picture  which 
Dr.  McLean  told  me  was  found  (together  with  Mrs  Burr's  in  a  roll)  in  the  loft  of  some  house 
in  New  Jersey — It  was  greatly  defaced — the  paint  had  flaked  &  fallen  off  in  consequence  of 
the  canvas  being  dry,  but  by  placing  it  against  the  light  in  a  window  I  was  able  to  fill  up  the 
denuded  parts  &  recover  the  form  &  features  from  which  I  made  the  Copy — I  must  have  re- 

<  6  > 


turned  the  original  to  D1*.  McLean  who  will  remember  the  fact,  &  may  be  able  to  tell  you  what 
disposal  he  made  of  it — 

I  also  painted  a  portrait  of  Judge  Edwards,  who  sent  to  my  room  two  portraits;  one  of 
Col.  Burr,  the  other  of  his  daughter  Theodosia;  both  painted  by  Gilbert  Stuart — &  at  the  re- 
quest of  Judge  Edwards,  Martin  Van  Buren  &  Dr.  Duer  of  Columbia  College,  called  to  see 
them — Mrs  Van  Buren  &  Theodosia  having  been  intimate  friends — I  think  you  will  find  a  son 
of  Judge  Edwards  (lawyer)  in  the  City,  who  can  give  you  information  of  these  portraits,  & 
may  have  them  in  his  possession — 

I  have  seen  no  other  portrait  of  Col.  Burr,  except  a  profile,  cabinet  size,  painted  by  Van- 
derlyn,  protege  of  Burr's — now  in  possession  of  the  Historical  Society —  This  is  all  the  infor- 
mation I  can  give  you,  which  I  send  with  pleasure,  hoping  it  may  be  of  service  to  you — I  shall 
be  glad  to  call  upon  you  in  my  next  visit  to  the  City,  perhaps  a  month  or  two  hence — Of 
Burr's  servant  appropriating  his  effects  I  know  nothing — I  shall  be  glad  to  see  your  portraits 
of  Col  Burr — 

If  you  have  a  Vanderlyn  I  shall  readily  recognize  it  for  he  was  one  of  our  best  painters 
I  anticipate  pleasure  in  calling  upon  you  &  thank  you  for  communicating  with  me  in 
relation  to  the  matter 

Very  truly  yours 

Edw  Mooney" 

October,  1892,  my  kinsman  Professor  John  Stillwell  Schenck,  of  Princeton  College,  wrote 
me:  We  (i.  e.  the  College)  have  a  portrait  of  President  Burr — none  of  his  wife  or  of  Col.  Burr. 
Ours  (i.  e.  Reverend  Aaron  Burr)  was  painted,  from  the  much  damaged  original,  by  Mooney, 
whose  country  place  is  Upper  Red  Hook,  N.Y.  And  in  a  subsequent  letter  he  stated  that  the 
original  portrait  of  the  Reverend  Aaron  Burr  and  his  wife  were  painted  by  Smybert. 


i  7 } 


The  Gilbert  Stuart  Portrait  of  Colonel  Burr 


And  Its  Copy  By 
John  Vanderlyn 

HOSE  who  have  ancestors  painted  by  Gilbert  Stuart  are  fortunate.  Gilbert 
Stuart  is  one  of  the  most  satisfying  and  brilliant  portraitists  of  all  nations  and 
times,  and  the  distinction  and  acclaim  which  he  now  receives  is  well  merited. 
Born  in  1754,  in  Rhode  Island,  a  pupil  of  Benjamin  West's  in  England,  he 
painted  until  1792,  in  Great  Britain,  when  he  returned  to  America.  He  re- 
mained in  New  York  until  1794;  thence  to  Philadelphia  and  Washington  until  1806,  when  he 
removed  to  Boston  where  he  remained  until  his  death  in  1828.  It  was  doubtless  promptly  fol- 
lowing his  arrival  in  New  York,  in  1792,  that  Stuart  painted  Colonel  Burr.  Burr  was  then 
thirty-six  years  of  age.  It  is  difficult,  most  difficult,  for  me  to  recognize  in  the  Gilbert  Stuart 
portrait,  owned  by  the  New  Jersey  Historical  Society,  the  features  of  Burr  made  familiar  to 
us  by  the  brushes  of  Vanderlyn  and  Sharpies  and  the  burin  of  St.  Memin.  To  be  sure  the  Stu- 
art portrait  is  a  two-thirds  full  face,  while  the  others  are  all  in  profile,  yet  the  dissimilarity  is 
insistent  inasmuch  as  the  Stuart  face  is  insensitive,  the  eyes  are  lacking  in  fire  and  the  nose 
and  upper  lip  are  wanting  in  delicacy.  There  is  some  resemblance,  however,  in  the  shape  of  the 
forehead  and  perhaps  the  nose  bears  some  likeness  to  that  of  the  full  face  portrait  of  Col.  Burr 
by  Vanderlyn,  painted  a  short  time  later.  Then  again  too  the  Stuart  picture  has  more  the 
dreamy  look  of  an  artist  and  poet,  dressed  neglige,  rather  than  the  astute  look  of  the  lawyer 
and  politician,  which  Burr  was  known  to  be,  but  the  dignity  and  repose  of  the  subject  offset 
these  detractions.  Despite  any  faulty  resemblance  there  exists  evidence,  indubitable  and  con- 
vincing, to  prove  this  attribution  to  Stuart  is  correct: 

(1)  It  is  known  that  the  Bowrowsons  carried  off  the  Burr  portraits  and  that  Judge  Ogden 
Edwards  discovered  them,  in  1847,  at  Short  Hills,  New  Jersey,  with  this  one  among  them; 
that  he  presented  it  to  his  friend  John  Chetwood,  Esq.,  who,  leaving  for  California,  in  1849, 
left  the  painting  to  David  A.  Hayes,  Esq.,  to  be  presented  to  the  Society,  which  was  done 
May  18,  1854,  who  subsequently  submitted  a  communication  concerning  it,  which  was 
printed  in  the  Proceedings  of  the  Society,  in  Vol.  X,  p.  170,  in  1865-6. 

It  is  inconceivable  that  Judge  Edwards,  Burr's  first  cousin,  whose  intimacy  with  him  was 
continuous  and  affectionate  to  the  very  end,  and  who  must  have  known  of  the  existence  of  the 
Stuart  painting  and  its  annexation  by  the  Bowrowsons,  could  possibly  have  gone  wrong  in  its 
identification. 

(2)  William  Dunlap,  in  his  History  of  The  Arts  of  Design,  tells  us  that  this  portrait  of 
Burr,  painted  by  Stuart,  was  copied  by  John  Vanderlyn,*  when  a  youthful  student  of  art  in 
New  York,  which  was  about,  I  deduce,  in  1794-95,  when  Vanderlyn  was  aged  eighteen  or 
nineteen,  and  that  he  took  his  copy  of  the  Burr  portrait  to  Kingston,  where  he  sold  it  to  Ma- 

*In  Parlon's  Life  of  Burr,  Vol.  II,  p.  376,  appears  a  letter  from  Robert  Gosman,  of  Kingston,  stating  that  John  Vanderlyn 
copied  a  portrait  of  Col.  Burr  by  Stuart,  which  was  bought  by  the  representative  in  Congress,  Major  Van  Gasebeck.  This  confirms 
Dunlap. 

i  8  } 


Aaron  Burr 


New  Jersey  Historical  Society 


Gilbert  Stuart 


jor  Van  Gaasbeck,  then  a  Member  of  Congress  from  Ulster  County.  This  Major  Van  Gaas- 
beck  proves  to  be  Peter  Van  Gaasbeck,  a  man  prominent  in  public  life  in  the  early  part  of  the 
19th  century.  Burr's  portrait  passed  from  him  to  his  daughter,  Sarah  Van  Gaasbeck,  who  dis- 
posed of  the  painting  during  her  life  time,  as  I  was  informed,  Nov.  8,  1882,  by  her  legatee  and 
executor,  Charles  K.  Westbrook,  of  Ogdensburg,  St.  Lawrence  County,  New  York.  To  whom 
it  went  Mr.  Westbrook  did  not  know,  but  Oct.  25th,  1882, 1  found  it  in  the  possession  of  Mr. 
Henry  A.  Burr,  of  44  East  34th  Street,  New  York  City,  who  informed  me  that  he  had  owned 
it  over  twenty-five  years  and  that  its  previous  owner  had  been  Mr.  George  Burns,  who  either 
lived  in  West  39th  Street,  New  York  City,  or  Athens,  opposite  Hudson,  New  York,  and  that 
he,  Burns,  had  had  it  for  twenty  years  and  had  secured  it,  either  directly  from  a  New  York 
bank  president  or  directly  from  a  man  politically  prominent  in  Kingston,  with  the  statement 
that  it  was  a  copy  by  Vanderlyn  of  Stuart's  portrait  of  Burr.  Burns  met  with  reverses  and  sold 
the  painting  at  public  auction,  where  Mr.  Henry  A.  Burr  became  its  owner,  for  $210.,  the  New 
York  Historical  Society  bidding  against  him.  I  suspect  that  this  Vanderlyn  copy  of  Stuart's 
painting  was  the  lot  No.  2013^,  which  was  sold  as  "Likeness  of  Col.  Aaron  Burr,  painted  by 
Stuart"  April  27, 1852,  by  John  L.  Vandewater  &  Co.,  at  their  salesroom,  No.  12  Wall  Street, 
New  York  City,  in  an  auction  of  "Revolutionary  Reminiscences,  Being  the  Balance  of  the  ex- 
tensive Collection  of  the  Late  Col.  Aaron  Burr,  Consisting  in  part  of  the  Original  Letters  of  Wash- 
ington, Hancock,  Nathaniel  Green,  Hamilton,  Lord  Stirling,  Lee,  Gov.  Taylor,  Elias  Boudinol, 
Timothy  Pickering,  Alex  Hamilton,  Count  Pulaski,  Clinton  and  many  others.  .  .  .  Also,  a  Like- 
ness of  Col.  Burr  by  Stuart,  with  many  other  interesting  Relics."  The  lot  following,  No.  201%, 
was  "Card  Plate  of  Mrs.  Alston,  daughter  of  Aaron  Burr,  who  was  taken  by  pirates."  The  total 
amounted  to  537  numbers.  Seldom  have  pictures  ever  had  a  clearer  provenance  and  it  may  be 
considered  as  established  beyond  dubiety  that  the  original  Gilbert  Stuart  portrait  of  Burr  is 
now  owned  by  the  New  Jersey  Historical  Society,  while  the  copy  of  it,  made  by  Vanderlyn  is 
now  in  the  possession  of  Princeton  College,  to  which  it  passed  from  the  heirs  of  the  late  Henry 
A.  Burr,  Esq.  When  I  met  this  gentleman,  in  1882,  I  was  young,  and  he  seemed  old.  He  was 
then  living  in  opulence  as  a  retired  merchant  and  all  things  pertaining  to  Col.  Burr  were  most 
alluring  to  him.  As  a  measure  of  his  enthusiasm,  he  remarked  that  Burr's  greatest  error  was 
that  he  had  not  shot  and  killed  Hamilton  twenty  years  before  he  did,  in  which  I  guess  all 
Burrites  concur.  He  showed  me  among  his  possessions,  the  ring  presented  by  Talleyrand  to 
Col.  Burr,  when  leaving  America  for  Europe.  It  was  the  heaviest  ring  I  ever  saw,  beautifully 
chased  gold  holding  a  stone  engraved  with  a  profile  figure  with  a  shooting  star  or  comet  be- 
hind the  head,  supposed  to  typify  Burr's  career.  The  ring  was  given  to  Henry  A.  Burr,  Esq., 
by  Miss  Theodosia  Prevost,  who  died  at  Englewood,  N.  J.,  in  1864,  who  received  it  as  a  gift 
directly  from  Col.  Aaron  Burr.  She  likewise  gave  Mr.  Burr  the  Colonel's  cigar  case  and  snuff 
box.  Another  relic  that  Mr.  Burr  prized  highly  was  the  spectacles  that  Col.  Burr  wore  until 
his  death,  which  appear  in  the  Vandyck  portrait.  These  he  received  from  the  gifted  and  ami- 
able authoress,  Mrs.  Ann  S.  Stephens. 

To  revert  once  again  to  the  Vanderlyn  copy  of  Stuart's  Burr.  It  was  a  canvas  about  two 
feet  by  two  and  a  half  feet,  painted  at  half-length,  with  the  figure  seated.  The  impression  that 
the  painting  made  upon  me,  in  1882,  over  forty  years  ago,  and  I  have  not  seen  it  since,  was 


i  9  } 


not  pleasing,  and  while  that  opinion  with  riper  judgment  might  now  be  modified,  I  recall  it  as 
having  an  effeminate  face,  one  lacking  in  strong  fines,  with  high  and  prominent  cheek  bones; 
a  forehead  large  and  bare,  with  the  dark  brown  hair  lying  tight  to  the  scalp,  as  if  tightly  drawn 
back  on  the  crown,  and  long  and  curly  on  the  sides  hiding  the  ears.  A  kerchief-like  drapery 
enveloped  the  neck,  and  below  it  on  the  front  of  his  costume,  appeared  a  few  dashes  of  scarlet 
color.  Subsequently  I  saw  the  original  portrait  by  Stuart,  in  the  New  Jersey  Historical  Soci- 
ety, but  I  was  too  concerned  in  securing  a  photograph  of  it  to  study  it. 

At  the  same  time  Vanderlyn  copied  the  Stuart  Burr,  in  1794,  he  copied  a  portrait  of  Eg- 
bert Benson,  also  by  Stuart.  At  that  date,  1794,  Benson  was  forty-eight  years  of  age,  which 
establishes  the  fact  that  Stuart  must  have  painted  two  portraits  of  Benson,  the  one  now  in 
the  New  York  Historical  Society,  presented  by  Robert  Benson,  Jr.,  painted  in  1807,  when 
Benson  was  sixty-one  years  old  which  conforms  to  his  looks  in  the  picture,  and  the  other,  the 
one  copied  by  Vanderlyn,  in  1794,  which  Vanderlyn  promptly  sold  to  C.  E.  Elmendorf,  Es- 
quire. The  whereabouts  of  the  original  of  this  first  portrait  of  Benson  by  Stuart,  and  of  its 
copy  by  Vanderlyn,  I  know  nothing  of. 

The  Beacon  Biographies  Of  Eminent  Americans  contain  a  volume  on  Aaron  Burr  by 
Henry  Charles  Merwin,  (Boston,  1899).  "The  photogravure  used  as  a  frontispiece  to  this  vol- 
ume is  from  a  photograph  of  the  painting  by  Gilbert  Stuart,  in  the  Possession  of  the  New  Jer- 
sey Historical  Society.  The  present  engraving  is  by  John  Andrews  &  Son,  Boston."  It  is  about 
three  inches  high  by  two  and  a  quarter  inches  wide  and  on  too  small  a  scale  to  give  the  correct 
values. 

Long  after  my  own  notes  were  gathered  Lawrence  Park's  Gilbert  Stuart.  An  Illustrated 
Descriptive  List  of  His  Work  was  printed.  He  described  the  Stuart  portrait  of  Aaron  Burr  as 
follows:  "New  York,  c.  1794.  Canvas,  29%  x  24%  inches.  He  is  shown  bust,  three  quarters 
left,  with  his  brown  eyes  directed  to  the  spectator.  His  complexion  is  ruddy  and  his  dark 
brown  hair,  brushed  back  and  turning  gray  above  his  forehead,  is  tied  with  a  queue  bow.  He 
wears  a  loose,  grayish-black  coat  or  morning  gown,  and  a  white  loose  shirt  collar;  a  red  waist- 
coat is  seen  above  the  lapels  of  his  coat.  The  background  is  plain,  of  reddish-brown  tones,  the 
red  being  more  pronounced  around  the  head,  and  particularly  near  the  right  side  of  the  face, 
with  brown  tones  towards  the  edge  of  the  canvas."  Then  follows  the  narrative  which  appeared 
in  the  New  Jersey  Historical  Society's  Proceedings  for  1865-66,  which  is  reproduced  under  my 
chapter  on  the  Bowrowsons.  Park  further  states  that  this  portrait  was  listed  as  No.  22  by 
Fielding  but  not  listed  by  Mason.  Park  then  lists  the  Vanderlyn  copy  of  this  Stuart  painting 
as  "A  Replica  of  the  Preceding"  and  states  that  it  is  owned  by  the  Museum  of  Historic  Art  at 
Princeton  University,  Princeton,  N.  J.,  and  that  it  was  presented  about  1915,  by  W.  0.  Morse, 
Esquire,  in  the  name  of  two  descendants  of  Aaron  Burr:  Harriet  Burr  Morse  and  Marie  Burr 
Hanna  Curran.  According  to  the  donor,  the  portrait  has  always  been  in  the  possession  of  Burr 
descendants." 

Reproduced,  in  half  tone,  in  "Romantic  Days  in  the  Early  Republic"  by  Mary  C.  Craw- 
ford, 19 12,  facing  page  111.  Not  listed  in  Mason. 

Aside  from  Park's  gross  error  of  describing  Vanderlyn's  copy,  as  a  replica  by  Stuart,  two 
trifling  misstatements  occur  in  his  history  of  the  painting:  (a)  Aaron  Burr  had  no  descendants 
in  1915,  and  (b)  the  portrait  was  only  acquired  by  Mr.  Henry  A.  Burr  by  purchase  some  fifty- 
eight  or  fifty-nine  years  after  its  origin. 


i  io  > 


The  Trumbull  Portrait 


Of 

Colonel  Burr 

N  MARCH  19th  and  20th,  1896,  now  some  thirty-two  years  ago,  The  American 
Art  Association  of  New  York  City,  sold,  at  auction,  a  remarkable  collection  of 
portraits  and  miniatures  of  American  Revolutionary  Generals,  Statesmen  and 
other  celebrities,  painted  between  1775  and  1819,  by  John  Trumbull,  the  able 
young  artist,  who  was  an  aide-de-camp  to  Washington  during  the  war  and 
who,  by  reason  of  his  position,  had  a  rare  opportunity  to  frequently  meet  his  subjects  at  close 
range.  The  collection  was  the  property  of  Mr.  Edward  Frossard,  of  Brooklyn,  New  York. 
Number  357,  of  the  Catalogue,  was:  Major  Aaron  Burr.  Pen  and  ink  portrait  on  card  board. 
J.  T.  1786.  7x5  inches. 

Number  358,  of  the  same  Catalogue,  was:  Sealed  frame,  containing  lock  of  hair  set  in 
locket  Major  Aaron  Burrs  Hair.  J.  T. 

Later,  this  miniature  portrait  was  exhibited  by  Dodd,  Mead  &  Co.,  of  New  York  City, 
the  book  dealers. 

From  Trumbull's  well  known  brilliancy  as  a  technician  and  portraitist,  this  little  work 
should  be  a  fine  and  accurate  rendition  of  Burr's  features,  but,  Oct.  6,  1923,  Mr.  Robert  Hoc 
Dodd  says:  that  "the  picture  was  small  and  not  very  good,"  and  that,  while  the  1896  records 
of  his  firm  have  been  destroyed,  they  bought  nothing  at  the  Frossard  Sale,  and  that  the  Burr 
portrait,  with  others  of  Mr.  Frossard's  collection,  were  merely  on  exhibition  with  them;  and 
that  the  consensus  of  opinion  was  that  Trumbull  did  not  paint  these  miniatures,  and  that 
probably  everything  in  the  sale  was  a  fake.  What  Mr.  Dodd  said  "is  from  memory  and  he  par- 
ticularly explained  the  fact  that  all  he  says  is  a  possibility ;  he  does  not  feel  he  can  speak  with 
authority."  Of  this  miniature  I  have  no  photograph  nor  do  I  know  its  present  whereabouts. 


i  11  > 


The  Two  Sharpies'  Portraits 

Of 

Colonel  Aaron  Burr 

AMES  SHARPLES  was  an  Englishman,  born  in  1752-53.  He  was  a  pastelistof 
ability  and  sincerity  and  crayoned  the  small  cabinet  portraits  by  which  he  is 
known,  with  great  rapidity,  often  completing  them  in  two  hours.  For  the  pro- 
files he  charged,  in  America,  the  modest  price  of  fifteen  dollars,  while  for  the 
full-faced  ones  he  added  five  dollars  more. 
The  colored  chalks  that  he  used  were  manufactured  by  himself  and  applied  it  is  stated, 
not  in  stick  form  as  is  common,  but  in  powder  by  a  camel's  hair  brush  through  an  adhesive 
medium  upon  a  thick  gray  or  brown  paper  of  soft  grain  and  woolly  texture.  The  color  scheme 
of  his  portraits  was  generally  low  and  their  size  was  commonly  9  by  12  inches.  Occasionally  he 
painted  these  small  portraits  in  oils. 

I  give  in  detail  here  all  the  information  I  have  obtained  concerning  James  Sharpies,  his 
wife  Ellen  Sharpies  and  his  children,  hoping  it  may  be  instrumental  in  allocating  their  works. 
Of  this  there  is  need  because  (1)  of  the  prevailing  belief  that,  besides  making  original  pro- 
ductions, they  copied  each  others  work;  (2)  because  most  of  their  portraits  are  unsigned;  (3) 
because  the  descriptions  used  a  century  ago  do  not  correspond  with  those  of  today — the  word 
painting  then  being  used  synonomously  with  crayon  and  pastel,  and  the  word  miniature  then 
being  used  to  describe  portraits  of  reduced  size  (9  inches  by  12  inches)  and  not  limited,  as  we 
of  today  use  it,  to  those  of  the  smallest  type. 

While  in  England  James  Sharpies  was  of  Cambridge,  from  1779  to  1781 ;  of  Bath,  in  1782, 
and  of  45  Gerrard  Street,  Soho,  London,  in  1783,  and  exhibited  at  the  Royal  Academy  be- 
tween 1779  and  1785,  fourteen  portraits. 

It  is  stated  that  he  visited  the  United  States  in  1794  and  forthwith  proceeded  to  Phila- 
delphia where  he  crayoned  many  prominent  individuals.  However,  the  Philadelphia  Directory 
fails  to  mention  him  in  1796,  but  in  1797  "James  Sharpless,  portrait  painter,  164,  South  Front 
St."  is  given.  In  1798,  he  fails  to  appear  in  Philadelphia,  but  is  registered  in  the  New  York 
Directory  as  James  Sharpies,  portrait  painter,  272  Greenwich,  and  again  in  1799,  as  James 
Sharpies,  portrait  painter,  Upper  Reed  [Street].  He  then  returned  to  England  where,  after  a 
stay  of  some  years,  he  revisited  this  country  in  1809,  and  resided  in  New  York  City  where  the 
Directories  of  1810  and  1811  call  him  portrait  painter  with  residence  at  Lispenard  [Street]. 
Here  he  soon  died.  His  burial  notice  in  The  Public  Advertiser,  New  York,  Feb.  28, 1811,  reads: 
Died.  On  Tuesday  morning  at  6  o'clock,  James  Sharpies,  Esq.,  in  the  59th  year  of  his  age. 
His  friends  and  acquaintances  are  invited  to  attend  his  funeral  from  his  late  dwelling,  N°.  3 
Lispenard  street  upper  end  of  Church  street,  this  afternoon  at  4  o'clock. 

His  will  was  probated  in  less  than  a  fortnight  following  his  decease  and  reads  as  follows: 


{  12  } 


Aaron  Burr  James  Sharples 

Before  Restoration 
Independence  Hall,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 


I,  James  Sharpies  of  the  City  of  New  York,  bequeath  unto  my  beloved  wife  Ellen  Sharpies 
all  my  property  of  what  denomination  soever,  consisting  of  Five  thousand  pounds  Sterling 
lately  remitted  to  the  house  of  Messrs.  Barclay  Tritton  Bevon  &  Co.  of  Lombard  Street  Lon- 
don for  my  use  and  the  balance  of  my  old  account  in  their  hands — Also  about  Five  thousand 
dollars  now  in  the  Merchants  Bank  of  New  York — all  my  household  furniture,  Pictures, 
Books  &c.  subject  to  the  several  legacies  herein  mentioned  namely :  To  my  son  George  Sharpies 
by  my  first  wife  who  has  already  received  his  mother's  marriage  portion,  I  give  two  hundred 
pounds  Sterling;  to  my  son  Felix  Thos.  Sharpies  by  my  second  wife,  I  give  five  hundred 
pounds  Sterling,  having  already  assigned  to  him  about  eighteen  hundred  acres  of  land  in  the 
State  of  Pennsylvania;  to  my  son  James  Sharpies  and  unto  my  amiable  daughter  Bolinda 
Sharpies  each  one  thousand  pounds,  all  legacies  to  be  paid  within  twelve  months  after  my 
decease.  Wife  Ellen,  sole  executrix.  Dated  Jan.  28,  1811.  Proved  March  11,  1811.  Witnesses: 
Jn°.  A.  Dunlap.  Jacob  Rad cliff.  Abstract  of  Will  of  James  Sharpies  in  The  New  York  Historical 
Society. 

This  instrument  sheds  much  fight  upon  James  Sharpies'  immediate  family  and  upon  the 
size  of  his  estate.  Without  any  knowledge  of  his  forebears  it  is  impossible  to  state  whether  his 
modest  wealth  was  inherited  or  acquired.  If  it  was  the  latter,  it  speaks  well  for  his  popularity 
his  activity  and  his  thrift.  Apparently  all  of  his  children  were  successful  and  his  widow  frugal, 
for  her  estate  after  surviving  her  husband  thirty-eight  years,  represented  all,  if  not  more  than, 
the  net  sum  he  bequeathed  her.  This  last  wife  was  Ellen  Wallace.  A  card  at  the  back  of  a  small 
crayon,  of  much  merit,  of  a  lady  wearing  a  mob  cap  and  fichu,  states  that  she  is  "Ellen  Wal- 
lace, of  Lancaster,  painted,  during  the  hours  he  wooed  the  fair  Ellen,  by  that  eminent  artist 
in  crayons,  James  Sharpies,  her  happy  husband."  This  interesting  and  apparently  self  com- 
plimentary reference  appeared  in  Notes  and  Queries  forty-two  years  ago.  Neither  the  name  nor 
residence  of  the  owner  of  the  pastel  was  then  given,  and  I  have  seen  no  further  allusion  to  it 
since.  Concerning  her  it  is  known  that  she  was  living  at  45  Gerrard  Street,  Soho,  London,  in 
1783,  when  she  exhibited  a  fruit  piece  at  the  Royal  Academy,  and  was  described  as  "em- 
broideress  to  Her  Majesty."  Her  address  was  likewise  at  this  date  the  same  as  her  husband's. 
Between  1783  and  1807,  she  exhibited  six  miniatures  at  the  Royal  Academy  and  the  Society 
of  Artists.  In  1807,  she  was  living  at  82  Hatton  Gardens,  London,  and  exhibited  five  or  six 
"miniatures"  including  Gen1.  Washington,  Sir  Joseph  Banks  and  Dr.  Priestley,  pastels,  the 
Washington  and  Priestley  now  being  in  the  National  Portrait  Gallery.  This  establishes  the 
important  fact  that  Mrs.  Sharpies  accompanied  her  husband  on  his  first  trip  to  America  and 
tho'  she  is  described  as  a  portrait  painter  and  her  specialty  that  of  a  miniaturist  that  these 
terms  stood  for  pastelist  of  small  portraits  which  we  know  she  was.  To  be  sure  her  fruit  piece 
could  have  hardly  been  made  in  any  other  medium  than  oil  paint  and  would  not  be  on  a  mini- 
ature scale,  but  the  fact  remains  she  worked  mostly  in  crayon. 

I  further  believe  that  Mrs.  Sharpies  accompanied  her  husband  upon  his  second  visit  to 
the  States  in  1809.  The  proof  of  this  lies  in  the  language  of  his  will  and  in  the  administration  of 
his  estate.  When  this  work  was  completed,  Mrs.  Sharpies  sailed  to  England  and  took  up  a 
residence  first  in  Bath,  then  in  London,  and  finally  in  Bristol,  where  she  died  March  14, 1849. 
As  she  had  outlived  her  children,  she  left  her  property,  amounting  to  £4,600,  to  the  Bristol 


{  13  > 


Academy  of  Fine  Arts,  which  she  had  founded  some  five  years  before  by  a  gift  of  £2,000.  Her 
obituary  appeared  in  the  Gentlemen's  Magazine,  for  May,  1849 : 

Mrs.  Sharpies 

[1849]  March  14.  At  Bristol  Hotwells,  aged  80,  Mrs.  Sharpies 
Some  five  years  since  Mrs.  Sharpies  presented  to  the  trustees  of  the  Bristol  Fine  Arts  Academy 
the  sum  of  £2,000  for  the  purpose  of  founding  and  supporting  that  institution;  and  it  now  ap- 
pears from  the  deceased  lady's  will,  that,  after  deducting  certain  bequests  and  legacies,  the 
whole  residue  of  her  property  is  bequeathed  to  the  Academy.  Her  funeral  was  attended  by  one 
mourning  coach,  containing  J.  S.  Harford,  esq.  President;  P.  W.  S.  Miles,  esq.  M.P.,  Vice 
President;  the  High  Sheriff;  and  G.  H.  Ames,  esq.  the  Treasurer  of  the  Fine  Arts  Academy. 
The  Honorary  Secretary,  Jere  Hill,  esq.  and  Robert  Bright,  esq.  one  of  the  trustees  of  the 
Academy,  followed  on  foot,  together  with  the  members  of  the  committee,  and  nearly  all  the 
resident  artists  of  Bristol,  in  deep  mourning.  Gentleman's  Magazine,  new  ser.,  Vol.  xxxi, 
page  554,  May,  1849. 

In  the  settlement  of  James  Sharpies'  estate  there  appeared  in  the  Public  Advertiser,  (New 
York  City),  of  April  6,  1811,  the  following  announcement,  which  sheds  some  light  upon  his 
social  position,  his  culture  and  the  disposal  of  a  portion,  if  not  all,  of  his  personally  owned 
crayon  portraits: 

The  Collection 

Of  Original  Portraits  of  Distinguished  American  Characters  painted  by  the  late  James 
Sharpies,  Esq.,  are  for  sale,  and  may  be  seen  at  N°.  3  Lispenard  Street,  upper  end  of  Church 
street. 

Also 

A  Capital  Grand  PIANO  FORTE,  of  Broadwood's,  selected  with  great  care  by  an  emi- 
nent Musician,  and  other  competent  judges,  who  considered  it  the  best  toned  instrument  to 
be  found  in  any  Ware-house  in  London. 

Like  Stuart,  St.  Memin  and  others,  Sharpies  made  replicas  of  his  portraits  for  business 
purposes  or  for  his  own  gratification.  Those  not  disposed  of  during  his  first  sojourn  here  prob- 
ably accompanied  him  to  England.  Those  made  and  not  privately  disposed  of  during  his  sec- 
ond visit,  are  probably  those  that  his  estate  offered  for  sale  in  the  preceding  advertisement. 
Perhaps  some  of  them  were  sold,  perhaps  none.  The  fact  remains  that  a  collection  of  forty-five 
of  these  small  pastels,  representing  a  group  of  important  early  Americans,  remained  intact. 
One  of  its  owners,  a  Virginian  it  is  said,  obtained  a  loan  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  on  it, 
but  by  default  in  repayment  it  was  lost  to  him.  In  1876,  George  W.  Childs,  Esquire,  bought 
and  presented  this  valuable  collection  to  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  where  it  is  appropriately 
hung  in  Independence  Hall.  Some  of  the  pastels  were  damaged.  The  color  had  flaked  from  the 
card  board  in  pin  head  spots,  giving  the  impression  of  fly-speck  or  worm-hole  damage,  but 
careful  restoration  by  Farina,  of  that  city,  has  brought  them  to  a  fine  degree  of  perfection. 

Fine  works  in  pure  condition  by  Sharpies  are  to  be  found  at  The  New  York  Historical 
Society.  The  artist  also  had  the  distinction  of  portraying  George  Washington,  and  he  made  a 

{  14  > 


Aakon  Burr  James  Sharples 

After  Restoration 
Independence  Hall,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 


singularly  fine,  truthful  but  inartistic,  profile  portrait  in  oils,  8  by  10  inches,  of  Alexander 
Hamilton,  which  was  owned  by  the  widow  who  outlived  her  husband  fifty-two  years,  and  died 
in  the  city  of  New  York  in  1856,  at  the  age  of  ninety-seven  years,  bequeathing  the  portrait  to 
her  youngest  son,  Philip  Hamilton,  who,  dying,  it  passed  to  his  son  the  late  Dr.  Allan  McLane 
Hamilton.  (Reproduced  in  Scribner's  Magazine.) 

Probably  the  best  opportunity  afforded  to  study  the  unquestioned  work  of  James 
Sharpies  would  be  the  collection  in  Independence  Hall,  Philadelphia;  and  the  best  opportun- 
ity offered  to  study  the  combined  work  of  the  Sharpies  family  would  be  the  collection  in  the 
Bristol  Museum  and  Art  Galley.  This  collection,  through  the  generosity  of  Miss  Helen  C. 
Frick,  has  been  photographed  and  is  accessible  at  The  Frick  Art  Reference  Library,  New  York 
City.  Three  of  the  four  Sharpies  children  possessed  art  talent. 

There  was  George,  a  son  by  the  first  wife,  who  I  conceive  is  the  G.  Sharpies,  resident  of 
London,  whose  specialty  was  portraits,  of  which  he  exhibited  (6)  six  at  the  Royal  Academy 
between  1815  and  1823. 

Next  there  was  James  Sharpies,  Jr.,  called  Esquire,  who  was  described  as  a  portrait 
painter  and  an  exhibitor  at  the  Royal  Academy,  who  died  at  Bristol,  August  10, 1839. 

Then  follows  Rolinda  Sharpies  who  was  described  as  a  resident  of  Bristol,  a  painter  of 
portraits,  likewise  a  specialist  in  Domestic  scenes  and  an  exhibitor  at  the  Royal  Academy  from 
1820  to  1836.  She  died  February  10,  1838,  and  left  to  the  Bristol  Society  of  Fine  Arts  several 
of  her  father's  portraits. 

Lastly  we  must  consider  Felix  Thomas  Sharpies,  the  eldest  son  of  the  artist  by  his  second 
wife.  I  have  seen  no  association  of  his  name  with  art  other  than  its  appearance  upon  the  back- 
ing of  the  pastel  portrait  of  Alexander  Hamilton,  owned  by  the  New  York  Historical  Society. 
Here  it  is  signed  twice,  once  as  Felix  Sharpies  and  again  as  Felix  T.  Sharpies.  This  pastel  is 
crayoned  upon  thin  brown  flock  paper,  bears  no  signature  and  is  covered  with  glass  both  front 
and  back.  Glass-covered  pictures  are,  and  always  have  been,  sealed  with  paper  to  prevent  dust 
infiltration  and  it  is  upon  paper  used  for  such  a  purpose,  that  the  name  of  Felix  T.  Sharpies 
occurs.  On  this  same  paper,  accompanying  these  two  signatures,  are  many  numerals,  some 
scattered,  some  arranged  in  the  shape  of  multiplication  tables;  likewise  an  attempt  at  a  geo- 
metrical design.  Two,  if  not  more,  layers  of  such  inscribed  paper  are  used  to  back  the  Hamil- 
ton pastel.  In  other  words  the  filling  is  simply  scrap  paper — paper  used  in  the  education  of 
children  and  then  discarded  and  from  my  view  point  the  signature  thereon  bears  no  relation 
to  the  author.  If  further  proof  is  needed  to  disprove  the  attribution  of  this  particular  painting 
to  Felix  T.  Sharpies  it  is  at  hand.  Admitting  precocity  exists  it  is  too  great  a  strain  upon  im- 
agination to  accept  the  Hamilton  portrait  as  a  work  of  a  boy  of  tender  years.  We  have  de- 
duced that  Felix  T.  Sharpies  was  born  about  1787.  He  was  probably  with  his  father  during  his 
first  visit  to  America,  1794-1799,  hence  seven  to  twelve  years  old.  He  was  probably  likewise 
with  his  father  in  1809,  upon  his  second  visit  to  the  States,  but  Hamilton  had  then  been  dead 
five  years.  The  Hamilton  portrait  was  presented  to  the  New  York  Historical  Society  Nov.  12, 
1816,  by  Dr.  Samuel  Akerly.  It  has  no  recorded  history  but  I  believe  that  it  was  beyond  dubi- 
ety one  of  the  "Original  Portraits  of  Distinguished  American  Characters  painted  by  the  late 
James  Sharpies,  Esq.,"  which  were  advertised  for  sale  April  6, 1811,  in  New  York  City.  That 


{  15  } 


Felix  T.  Sharpies  was  an  artist  and  a  copyist  of  his  father's  work  will,  however,  be  fully  proven 
by  Mrs.  McCook  Knox  in  her  forthcoming  exhaustive  work  on  the  Sharpies'  family  based 
upon  original  research. 

In  the  possession  of  Mr.  Robert  Fridenberg,  of  New  York  City,  there  is  likewise  a 
Sharpies  pastel,  signed  twice,  directly  on  the  back  of  the  flock  paper.  It  carries  the  name  of 
Rolinda  Sharpies  and  there  is  a  comment  on  the  writing  to  the  effect  "that  it  was  apparently 
written  by  her  at  the  age  of  ten."  It  is  self-evident  that  such  signatures  as  these  possess  no 
evidential  value  of  authorship.  In  this  instance  it  is  probable  that  an  indulgent  father  allowed 
his  child  the  use  of  his  drawing  materials  as  playthings. 

A  resume  of  the  preceding  facts  discloses:  that  James  Sharpies  was  born  1752-3  and  died 
Feb.  28, 1811,  in  his  59th  year;  that  his  wife  Ellen  Wallace  was  born  in  1769  and  died  March 
14, 1849,  aged  80  years.  Hence  it  follows  she  was  seventeen  years  his  junior  and  outlived  him 
thirty-eight  years;  that  she  survived  her  son,  James  Sharpies,  by  ten  years,  and  her  daughter 
Rolinda  Sharpies  by  eleven  years.  The  early  deaths  of  James  Sharpies  and  his  children,  James 
and  Rolinda,  are  noteworthy.  In  the  absence  of  any  documentary  proof  I  deduce  that  James 
Sharpies  married  Ellen  Wallace  when  she  was  about  seventeen  years  of  age  and  that  their 
children  were  born  approximately  as  follows:  Felix  Thomas  about  1787;  James  about  1789, 
and  Rolinda  about  1791. 

We  now  approach  the  consideration  of  the  two  Burr  portraits  accredited  to  James 
Sharpies. 

Of  the  one  in  Independence  Hall,  Philadelphia,  there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  either  artist 
or  sitter.  The  recognition  is  instantaneous.  The  origin  of  the  group  of  pastels  to  which  this  one 
of  Burr  belongs  is  elsewhere  alluded  to  in  this  article.  It  was  probably  taken  during  Colonel 
Burr's  attendance,  as  a  Member  of  Congress,  at  Philadelphia,  in  1794,  then  the  Capital  of  the 
country,  to  which  place  Sharpies  would  naturally  at  once  proceed.  This  deduction  as  to  date 
is  based  upon  the  assumption  that  Sharpies'  first  visit  to  this  country  has  been  correctly 
stated  as  1794;  occasionally  I  have  felt  it  may  have  been  a  year  later. 

During  the  period  of  Sharpies'  last  visit,  1809,  Burr  was  practically  a  prisoner  in  Europe, 
so  with  certainty  his  portrait  must  have  been  executed  in  1794,  or  shortly  thereafter. 

Burr's  portrait  was  among  those  that  were  damaged  and  its  original  delicacy  of  modelling 
is  lost.  He  was  at  this  time  about  thirty-eight  years  of  age  and  is  represented  at  half  length, 
wearing  a  stock  and  ruffled  shirt,  with  hair  powdered  and  brushed  back  over  the  head,  ter- 
minating in  a  queue  behind  and  a  roll  on  the  side  above  the  ear  which  is  portrayed  abnormally 
large;  likewise  small  side  whiskers.  In  this  painting,  from  its  necessary  restoration,  his  features 
lack  mobility  and  sensitiveness.  It  is  Burr,  but  not  the  resolute  and  elegant  Burr;  not  the  Burr 
who  was  so  extremely  careful  of  his  personal  appearance;  not  the  Burr  who  bought  dusting 
powder  for  his  hair  and  who  entered  under  date  of  Sept.  10,  1810,  in  his  Diary  "I  was  almost 
the  only  person  who  was  laced."  The  whereabouts  of  the  original  pastel  is  unknown.  Before 
its  restoration  by  Farina,  the  replica  of  Burr's  portrait,  with  its  many  imperfections,  was 
photographed  by  Ph.  B.  Wallace,  of  711  Walnut  Street,  Philadelphia.  Since  its  restoration  it 
has  been  used  to  illustrate  several  articles  on  Burr.  A  steel  engraving  of  it,  copyrighted  1903 

i  16  } 


Aaron  Blur  James  Sharples 

Bristol  Art  Gallery,  England 


by  G.  Barrie  &  Sons,  appears  in  a  History  of  the  United  States,  Philadelphia,  etc. 

The  Sharpies  portrait  likewise  illustrates  Ida  M.  Tarbell's  magazine  article  on  The  Trial 
Of  Aaron  Burr. 

The  Bristol  pastel  of  Colonel  Burr  is  at  first  sight  unconvincing.  It  is  only  after  a  pro- 
longed, careful  study  of  the  features  that  sufficient  proof  can  be  deduced  to  make  it  accept- 
able. It  wants  the  general  elegance  of  dress  and  mien,  the  beau  like  quality,  which  character- 
ized the  man.  Instead  of  a  gentleman  of  fashion  we  have  a  puritan,  a  New  England  deacon  of 
early  colonial  days,  with  unkempt  hair  falling  straight  to  the  shoulder  where  it  is  crudely 
banged  and  the  only  suggestion  of  a  coiffure  lies  in  a  faintly  outlined  queue.  He  belongs  to  the 
bourgeoisie.  The  drawing  lacks  delicacy  of  outline.  Some  of  its  defects  may  be  accounted  for 
by  damage  to  the  easily  perishable  medium,  crayon,  in  which  it  was  executed.  With  all  these 
objections  admitted  I  think  it  may  be  safely  accepted  as  a  portrait  of  Colonel  Burr,  perhaps 
by  Ellen  Sharpies.  We  know  that  she  crayoned  Washington  and  Priestley,  but  whether  the 
portraits  were  originals  or  copies  of  her  husband's  work  I  have  not  the  means  at  hand  to  de- 
termine. That  she  did  much  good  work  as  a  portraitist  in  pastel  is,  however,  an  admitted  fact. 
The  date  at  which  the  Bristol  portrait  of  Burr  was  executed,  whether  it  be  the  work  of  James 
or  Ellen  Sharpies,  should  conform  to  the  date  of  their  first  visit  to  this  country. 

References:  Algernon  Graves'  Dictionary  of  Artists,  London,  1884,  page  211;  Redgrave's 
Dictionary  of  Artists,  1878,  page  389;  Gentleman  s  Magazine,  1839,  page  435,  and  1849,  page 
554,  and  Notes  and  Queries,  1886,  page  268. 


The  1796  St.  Memin  Portrait 

Of 

Colonel  Burr 


HARLES  BALTHAZAR  JULIEN  FEVRET  DE  ST.  MEMIN,  a  member  of 
an  illustrious  French  family,  was  born,  at  Dijon,  France,  in  1770.  About  the 
year  1793,  he  crossed  the  Atlantic  with  his  father,  to  secure  from  sequestration 
the  estates  of  his  mother  in  Santo  Domingo.  The  political  disturbances  there, 
as  well  as  in  France,  prompted  father  and  son  to  turn  to  the  United  States  for 
an  asylum.  Here  they  were  later  joined  by  the  female  members  of  their  family,  who  success- 
fully established  and  conducted  for  years,  a  seminary  for  young  ladies.  M.  Fevret  de  St. 
Memin  was  a  man  of  culture  and  varied  attainments.  He  had  reached  the  position  of  a  Lieu- 
tenant-Colonel in  the  army,  was  a  profound  mathematician,  an  artist,  an  archeologist,  a  cele- 
brated engraver  and  a  mechanical  genius.  He  successfully  employed  his  skill  in  devising  two 
instruments  which  he  used  in  the  production  of  the  exquisitely  engraved  medallion  portraits, 
with  which  his  name  is  associated,  many  of  which  represent  illustrious  Americans.  These  he 
cleverly  executed  by  drawing  the  head  in  profile,  by  one  of  the  instruments,  called  the  phy- 
siono trace,  in  life-size  in  black  crayon  on  dark  pink  tinted  paper,  about  12  inches  wide  by  18 
inches  high,  and  reducing  the  same,  by  the  other  instrument,  called  the  pantograph,  to  suit- 
ably small  proportions  for  engraving.  The  original  large  sketch,  framed,  with  the  engraved 
copper  plate  reducing  it  to  a  circular  medallion  not  exceeding  two  and  one-half  inches  in 
diameter,  with  a  dozen  impressions,  mezzotints,  were  delivered  in  three  days  or  thereabouts, 
for  the  sum  of  one  hundred  and  sixty-five  francs.  Many  of  the  physionotraces  and  the  small 
engravings  are  still  to  be  found,  some  among  the  descendants  of  the  sitters,  some  in  historical 
collections,  and  some  in  private  collections.  M.  St.  Memin  generally  kept  two  copies  of  the 
engraving  for  himself,  so  that  two  sets,*  one  somewhat  more  complete  than  the  other,  returned 
with  him  to  France,  in  1815,  and  remained  in  his  possession  till  the  time  of  his  death,  in  1852, 
at  Dijon,  at  the  advanced  age  of  eighty-two,  and  where  he  still  was  and  had  been  the  intelli- 
gent Director  of  the  celebrated  museum  of  that  place  for  many  years.  Both  sets  then  returned 
to  America,  where  one  of  the  collections  was  purchased  by  Elias  Dexter,  the  print  seller,  of 
New  York  City,  and  the  other,  consisting  of  eight  hundred  and  eighteen  engravings,  passed  to 
the  Corcoran  Art  Gallery.  Mr.  Dexter  shortly  determined  to  reproduce  his  set  in  book  form, 
by  photography,  the  only  reproduction  process  then  known,  and  employed  the  services  of  J. 
Gurney  and  Son,  of  New  York  City.  The  work  was  published  by  subscription,  and  instead  of 
gain,  occasioned  Mr.  Dexter  great  loss.  The  Civil  War  in  the  States  was  under  way  and  all  the 
Southern  subscribers,  and  many  of  the  Northern  ones,  were  financially  ruined,  many  were 
killed,  and  nearly  all  lost,  for  the  time  at  least,  interest  in  their  forebears.  The  photography 
was  excellent,  and  the  reproductions  numbered  seven  hundred  and  sixty  portraits  of  men 

*A  third,  small,  domestic  collection  was  formed  by  Peter  Force,  the  compiler  of  historical  documents,  of  three  hundred  and 
thirty-one  engravings,  from  all  available  sources.  This  incomplete  set  is  now  owned  by  the  Library  of  Congress. 

An  interesting  article  on  The  Portraits  of  St.  Memin  appears  in  Appleton's  Magazine,  for  July,  1906,  by  Charles  Kasson 

Wead. 


i  18  } 


Aaron  Burr 


1796 


St.  Memin 


prominent  in  social,  military,  political  and  commercial  life,  with  occasionally  ladies  of  dis- 
tinction. The  photographs  were  grouped  twelve  on  a  page  and  the  lives  of  the  subjects  were 
briefly  sketched,  where  possible,  by  Mr.  Dexter,  but  despite  his  efforts,  some,  however,  re- 
mained unidentified.  Collectively  they  made  a  fine  folio  volume,  sumptuously  bound  in  dark 
green  embossed  morocco,  with  the  following  title:  The  St.  Memin  Collection  of  Portraits; 
consisting  of  Seven  Hundred  and  Sixty  Medallion  Portraits  Principally  of  Distinguished 
Americans  Photographed  by  J.  Gurney  and  Son,  of  New  York,  from  proof  impressions  of  the 
original  copper-plates,  engraved  by  M.  De  St.  Memin  from  drawings  taken  from  life  by  him- 
self, during  his  exile  in  the  United  States,  from  1793  to  1814.  To  which  are  added  A  Memoir 
of  M.  De  St.  Memin  and  Biographical  Notices  of  the  Persons  whose  Portraits  constitute  the 
Collection,  compiled  from  authentic  and  original  sources,  by  the  publisher.  New  York.  Pub- 
lished by  Elias  Dexter,  No.  562  B'way,  1862. 

Few  volumes  ever  got  into  circulation,  for  the  editor  was  too  discouraged  to  have  many 
copies  struck  from  the  negatives.  His  son,  Edward  Dexter,  succeeded  him  in  business  and  as 
the  owner  of  the  original  set  of  impressions,  he  was  not  averse  to  selling  individual  engravings. 
Whether  he  did  or  did  not,  I  do  not  know,  but  the  engraving  of  Colonel  Burr  and  his  daughter 
were  offered  to  me,  but  at  a  price  that  I  was  then  unable  to  pay.  Subsequently  the  Dexter  col- 
lection passed  to  H.  L.  Carson,  of  Philadelphia,  and,  as  at  his  sale  it  brought  $4,800.,  and  in- 
cluded seven  hundred  and  sixty-one  mezzotints,  it  could  not  have  been  diminished.  Of  the 
present  location  of  the  Dexter  collection  I  am  uninformed. 

St.  Memin's  work  was  excellent.  His  likenesses  were  correct  and,  with  few  exceptions,  he 
endowed  his  sitters  with  mobile  faces  and  graceful  figures,  while  technically  his  work  was  sel- 
dom equalled.  As  he  moved  southward  from  New  York  City  to  Charleston,  South  Carolina, 
he  secured  his  portraiture  wherever  opportunity  offered,  so  that  his  collection,  so  far  as 
America  was  concerned,  was  cosmopolite. 

In  the  collection  of  St.  Memin's  portraits,  published  by  Dexter,  there  is  one  of  Colonel 
Burr  and  one  of  his  daughter  Theodosia,  both  by  St.  Memin  himself,  and  another  of  Theo- 
dosia,  by  John  Vanderlyn,  copied  by  St.  Memin.  The  profile  of  Colonel  Burr,  though  undated, 
was  doubtless  made  in  1796,  in  New  York  City,  where  St.  Memin  was  industriously  at  work. 
The  arrangement  of  the  sitter's  hair  and  the  style  of  dress,  as  well  as  the  fact  that  the  com- 
panion engraving  of  his  daughter  Theodosia,  bears  the  date  1796,  warrant  this  assumption.  A 
year  later  her  devoted  parent  had  St.  Memin  copy  the  small  Vanderlyn  portrait,  which, 
though  it  bears  the  date  1797,  placed  upon  it  by  St.  Memin,  as  the  year  of  his  production,  was 
in  reality  painted  the  year  before,  1796,  by  Vanderlyn.  It  evidently  had  a  strong  appeal  to 
Colonel  Burr,  or  to  St.  Memin  himself,  to  be  thus  reproduced. 

The  likeness  of  Colonel  Burr  carries  no  name;  it  needed  no  label.  Colonel  Burr  was  then 
about  forty  years  old  and  at  the  zenith  of  his  intellectual  vigor  and  political  power;  loved 
idolatrously  by  his  adherents  and  feared  and  hated  by  his  opponents.  St.  Memin  no  doubt 
gives  a  faithful  likeness  of  him.  Naturally  the  head  is  drawn  in  profile.  His  hair  is  full  and 
drawn  into  a  queue  and  though  fight,  was  probably  not  powdered.  The  use  of  queue  and  pow- 
der by  1803,  was  largely  abandoned  save  by  the  elders.  All  ears  looked  much  alike  to  St. 
Memin  and  Burr's  are  not  distinctive.  His  neck  is  encircled  by  a  soft  stock  terminating  in  a 


i  19  y 


loose  tie.  He  wears  the  habiliments  of  a  gentleman  of  that  period : — a  velvet  collar  on  his  outer 
coat  and  a  white  vest  with  a  rolling  collar  within.  His  head  is  well  proportioned.  His  face 
shows  few  lines  and  has  plasticity  from  the  exquisite  shadows  St.  Memin  introduced  in  his 
modelling.  His  nose,  the  oft  baffling  feature  of  the  sculptors  and  artists  who  essayed  it,  is 
delicately  modelled.  The  handling  of  the  mouth  and  lips  alone  mar  the  beauty  of  the  face  and 
give  it  a  quizzical,  even  if  not  a  slightly  sinister  expression.  I  know  nothing  of  the  existence  of 
either  the  physionotrace  sketch,  the  pantograph  plate  or  the  engravings  struck  therefrom,  of 
this  portrait  of  Colonel  Burr.  This  portrait  is  used  to  illustrate  the  magazine  article,  Hamil- 
tons  Estimate  Of  Burr. 


i  20  } 


Aaron  Burr  St.  Memin 


1805 


The  1805  St.  Memin  Portrait 

Of 

Colonel  Burr 


PORTRAIT  of  Colonel  Burr,  in  black  crayon  upon  white  paper,  was  owned 
about  1887,  by  the  bookseller,  J.  W.  Bouton,  of  New  York  City,  who  offered  it 
for  sale  at  one  hundred  dollars.  It  was  perfectly  reproduced  as  "an  original  and 
unpublished  drawing  from  nature  by  Saint  Memin,"  in  the  Curio,  for  Decem- 
ber, 1887,  an  art  magazine  which  had  a  short  life  in  New  York.  Of  its  origin 
and  fate  I  know  nothing.  I  recall  it  when  in  Bouton's  hands  as  a  fine  free  offhand  sketch  of 
great  virility,  representing  Colonel  Burr  as  keen  and  aggressive,  with  a  flashing  eye,  a  dilating 
nostril  and  a  determined  mouth  and  chin.  There  is  no  doubt  in  my  mind  it  was  one  of  St. 
Memin's  physionotraces,  and  from  the  loss  of  his  hair  and  the  lines  in  his  face,  Colonel  Burr 
was  at  least  ten  years  older  than  when  he  sat  for  St.  Memin  in  1796.  If  the  assumption  is  cor- 
rect that  it  was  made  approximately  about  1806,  it  could  have  been  done  in  November,  1805, 
at  Washington,  for  St.  Memin  and  Burr  were  both  there  at  that  date.  Less  likely  was  it  done 
in  1807,  when  Colonel  Burr  was  in  Richmond  undergoing  trial  for  treason,  of  which  he  was 
acquitted  in  June,  1807,  and  St.  Memin  was  in  Georgetown,  but  a  short  distance  away,  for  it 
would  hardly  have  been  a  propitious  moment  for  its  execution  even  if  their  paths  had  crossed, 
which  it  seems  hard  to  believe  they  did.  At  one  other  date  it  would  have  been  possible  for  St. 
Memin  to  have  secured  Burr's  likeness,  for  Burr  arrived  in  Paris,  February  16,  1810,  and  he 
resided  in  France  during  the  ensuing  year  and  St.  Memin  was  in  France  from  1810  to  1812. 

The  present  whereabouts  of  this  striking  and  vigorous  likeness  I  do  not  know.  A  clumsy 
copy  of  it  was  made  by  one  who  signed  himself  J.  Gaddis.  Concerning  this  copy  Richard  B. 
Shephard,  Esq.,  of  Salt  Lake  City,  Utah,  wrote  me,  March  28,  1919:  "The  Shephard  Book 
Company,  of  which  I  am  president,  bought  a  work  on  Aaron  Burr.  I  think  it  was  Coghlan's 
Confessions,  at  auction,  either  in  New  York  or  Boston;  a  12  mo.  volume,  on  the  fly  leaf  of 
which  was  a  pencil  portrait  of  Aaron  Burr  signed  J.  Gaddis.  The  book  was  sold  to  Princeton 
University  some  years  ago  with  the  original  portrait  etched  by  Gaddis  in  it." 

This  St.  Memin  portrait,  I  mean  the  original,  made  approximately  in  1805,  conforms 
singularly  to  Burr's  uncomplimentary  description  of  himself,  written  March  14,  1802,  to 
Theodosia:  "A  lady  of  rank  and  consequence  who  had  a  great  curiosity  to  see  the  Vice  Presi- 
dent, after  several  plans  and  great  trouble,  at  length  was  gratified,  and  she  declared  that  he 
was  the  very  ugliest  man  she  had  ever  seen  in  her  life.  His  bald  head,  pale  hatchet  visage,  and 
harsh  countenance,  certainly  verify  the  lady's  conclusion.  Your  very  ugly  and  affectionate 
father,  A.  Burr." 


i  21  } 


The  1802  Vanderlyn  Portrait 

Of 

Colonel  Burr 

T  WAS  when  he  had  attained  a  degree  of  excellence,  and  in  1802,  that  Vander- 
lyn painted  the  portraits  of  Colonel  Burr  and  his  daughter  Theodosia,  por- 
traits admirable  alike  in  composition  and  execution  and  by  which  their  features 
are  best  known.  The  1802  portrait  of  Colonel  Burr  is  now  in  my  possession  and 
was  the  particular  means  of  interesting  me  in  the  pictorial  history  of  the  Burrs. 
Away  back  in  November,  1881, 1  saw  it  through  the  window  of  a  slowly  jogging  Third  Avenue 
horse  car,  in  the  shop  of  Fullerton,  a  dealer  in  curios,  antiques  and  jewelry.  Fullerton  was  a 
character,  shrewd,  shifty,  humorous  and  a  bit  unscrupulous.  There  was  nothing  he  could  not 
land  either  in  goods  or  people.  With  the  portrait  was  displayed  a  large  blue  china  platter.  I 
bought  them  both  and  the  receipt  read :  This  Portrait  by  Vanderlyn  of  Aaron  Burr  and  Blue 
Platter  sold  this  24th  day  of  November,  1881,  was  among  the  effects  of  said  Aaron  Burr  when 
they  were  seized  by  Anthony  Bowrowson  who  had  obtained  a  judgment  for  debt  against  the 
said  Burr  since  which  time  they  have  been  in  the  family  of  Anthony  Bowrowson. 

H.  Van  Meerbeek  [Meerbeck] 
Mr.  Fullerton  was  simply  a  consignee;  Mr.  Van  Meerbeck  was  the  consignor  and  owner.  He 
was  shy  and  I  never  met  him,  but  by  letter  he  informed  me  that  his  family  had  other  portraits 
of  the  Burrs.  This  I  was  inclined  to  doubt.  He  was  a  young  man  and  had  had  perhaps  the 
tradition  of  earlier  Bowrowson  ownership,  but  there  is  no  escape  from  the  fact  that  he,  a  de- 
scendant of  Anthony  Bowrowson  (through  his  daughter  Theodosia  Shelburg,  through  her 
daughter  Mrs.  Kennedy,  through  her  daughter  Mrs.  Van  Meerbeck,)  had  as  well  some  of 
Burr's  household  effects.  Judge  Ogden  Edwards  got  some  of  the  paintings  and  personal  effects 
from  Mrs.  Shelburg,  but  she  evidently  retained,  or  more  likely  had  distributed,  others  that  she 
told  him  nothing  of.  Young  Van  Meerbeck  claimed  that  his  family  still  owned  the  only  por- 
trait of  Theodosia  then  extant,  and  we  know  that  from  Mrs.  Shelburg  descended  the  watch, 
with  miniature  portraits  of  Burr's  first  wife  and  daughter  painted  on  the  dial,  to  its  present 
owner,  Mr.  E.  D.  Hill,  of  Atlantic  Avenue,  Keyport,  New  Jersey.  Collectively  such  facts  will 
not  permit  of  any  flat  contradiction  of  Mr.  Van  Meerbeck's  statements,  but  any  further  eluci- 
dation of  them,  because  of  the  great  lapse  of  time,  seems  now  unlikely.  (See  chapters  on  the 
Bowrowsons  and  The  Burr  Watches.) 

Vanderlyn's  portrait  of  Colonel  Burr,  painted  in  1802,  is  so  well  known  that  it  only  calls 
for  a  limited  description.  It  is  painted  on  a  canvas,  17  inches  by  22^  inches,  and  represents 
Burr  in  profile,  at  the  age  of  forty-six  years.  His  hair  is  drawn  back  from  a  high  and  prominent 
forehead,  is  dusted  white,  and  terminates  in  a  queue.  His  face  is  well  modelled;  his  nose  thin 
and  sharp,  his  upper  Hp  finely  cut,  his  chin  somewhat  heavy.  The  tip  of  a  soft  collar  appears 


{  22  > 


Aaron  Burr 


1802 

Dr.  John  E.  Stillwell 


John  Vanderlyn 


over  a  heavy  neck  kerchief.  The  flesh  tones  are  florid  and  the  paint  is  thin,  showing  the  twill 
of  the  canvas.  Behind  and  beneath  his  ear,  lying  upon  his  neck,  are  some  loose  curving  hairs. 

This  portrait  of  Colonel  Burr  was  finely  engraved  by  G.  Parker,  as  a  frontispiece  to  vol- 
ume one  of  the  Memoirs  of  Aaron  Burr,  published  by  Matthew  L.  Davis  in  1836,  and  again 
used  by  him  in  volume  one  of  The  Private  Journal  of  Aaron  Burr,  edited  in  1856. 

This  portrait  was  again  engraved  by  H.  Wright  Smith  as  a  frontispiece  to  The  Life  And 
Times  Of  Aaron  Burr  by  J.  Parton,  N.  Y.,  1858,  but  it  lacks  the  vigor  and  accuracy  of  Parker's 
engraving. 

Since  1836  it  has  been  the  common  and  very  popular  reproduction  of  Colonel  Burr's 
features. 

How  the  1802  paintings  by  Vanderlyn  of  Burr  and  his  daughter,  Theodosia,  were  ob- 
tained, in  1836,  for  the  engraver,  G.  Parker,  I  do  not  know.  Hip  Burr  says  they  were  borrowed 
by  Davis.  The  inimical  Bowrowsons  then  had  the  Colonel's  portrait  and  the  inference  is  that 
they  were  made  from  a  now  unlocated  replica. 


i  23  > 


The  Gridley  Engraving 

Of 

Colonel  Burr 


mm 


NOCH  G.  GRIDLEY  was  an  engraver  in  both  stipple  and  line  doing  business 
in  New  York  from  1803  to  1805.  The  latest  date  on  any  of  his  plates  noted  was 
1818.  Stauffers  American  Engravers,  Vol.  1,  p.  111. 

In  May,  1925,  Robert  Fridenberg,  the  prominent  New  York  dealer  in  en- 
gravings, presented  me  with  what,  at  first  sight,  purported  to  be  an  engraving 
of  Aaron  Burr,  but  which,  upon  close  examination,  he  discovered  was  a  fine  mechanical  re- 
production. It  was  apparently  an  illustration  taken  from  a  sales  catalogue  and  bore,  pasted 
beneath  it,  the  following  printed  descriptive  text:  A.  BURR  ESQ.  Full  bust  in  profile  to  right. 
Oval.  Stipple.  E.  Gridley  sc.  Size  4x2  15/16.  Excessively  rare.  See  facsimile.  What  became  of 
the  original  engraving  Mr.  Fridenberg  could  not  learn.  The  reproduction  was  excellent  but 
the  original  engraving  was  mediocre  and  it  was  unquestionably  a  copy  with  slight  variations, 
a  variant,  if  you  please,  of  the  1802  portrait  of  Aaron  Burr  by  Vanderlyn. 


{  24  } 


 1 

Aaron  Burr  E.  Gridley 

Engraving 


Aaron  Burr 


1802-1804 
Mr.  Walter  Jennings 


John  Vanderlyn 


The  1802-4  Vanderlyn  Portrait 

Of 

Colonel  Burr 

N  THE  possession  of  Mr.  Walter  Jennings,  of  New  York  City,  there  is  a  por- 
trait of  Colonel  Burr  painted  by  Vanderlyn  which  represents  him  at  chest 
length  and  nearly  full  face.  It  was  bought  from  Miss  Laura  Jay  Edwards,  of 
Millbrook,  Duchess  County,  New  York,  in  April,  1919,  and  was  one  of  those 
rescued  by  her  grandfather,  Judge  Ogden  Edwards,  from  the  Bowrowsons,  as 
I  have  set  forth  in  the  history  of  the  portrait  of  Theodosia  by  Gilbert  Stuart,  of  which  it  was 
the  companion  for  many  years.  From  the  Summer  of  1883,  when  I  first  saw  it  hanging  upon 
the  walls  of  the  Edwards'  home,  in  Stratford,  Connecticut,  until  the  date  of  its  sale,  I  had 
quietly  kept  in  touch  with  it  and  my  regret  was  keen  when  it  escaped  me  and  passed  to  others. 
From  little  less  than  attic  room  possessions  of  small  worth  when  I  sought  them  and  valued  at 
a  few  hundred  dollars,  these  two  portraits  rose,  at  my  bidding  and  the  mediation  of  the  Amer- 
ican Art  Rooms,  and  the  expert  endorsement  of  the  Ehrichs,  to  high  figures,  and  then  became 
the  property  of  the  Jennings.  Miss  Edwards  was  well  within  her  rights  to  sell  to  the  highest 
qidder,  however  cavalierly  I  may  have  thought  myself  treated,  and  there  is  ground  for  con- 
gratulation that  the  paintings  have  passed  from  her  custody  to  more  appreciative  owners. 
There  is  no  documentary  evidence  concerning  the  origin  of  this  painting,  but  I  conjecture  it 
was  among  Vanderlyn's  relatively  early  efforts.  Studying  it,  as  I  am  doing,  from  a  very  poor 
photograph  which  I  had  made  in  1883,  when  it  was  in  possession  of  its  Stratford  owners,  there 
seems  much  stiffness  and  formality  about  the  pose,  and  little  plasticity  of  feature.  Comparing 
it  with  the  Stuart  portrait  of  Colonel  Burr,  one  realizes  that  they  interchangeably  sustain  each 
other,  with  added  grace  and  skill  in  limning  being  perceptible  in  the  older  artist's  work,  and 
the  added  age  of  the  subject  being  apparent  in  the  younger  artist's  work.  This  presentation  of 
Burr's  features  is  valuable  as  he  is  commonly  delineated  in  profile.  Here  the  body  squarely 
faces  the  spectator  while  the  head  is  rotated  slightly  over  the  right  shoulder.  His  forehead  is 
high  and  massive,  and  his  white  dusted  hair  is  drawn  loosely  back  and  connects  on  the  side 
with  small  whiskers.  His  eyes  are  painted  characteristically  piercing  brown-black.  His  nose  is 
well  modelled,  short  and  straight,  leaving  a  rather  long  upper  Hp,  with  a  homely  and  irreso- 
lute mouth  and  a  large,  strong  chin.  A  massive  white  kerchief,  with  two  projecting  collar  tips, 
covers  a  large  portion  of  his  chest.  There  is  a  poor  reproduction  of  this  painting  in  The  Satur- 
day Evening  Post  of  Sept.  6,  1924,  used  to  illustrate  Mr.  Meade  Minnigerode's  article  on 
Theodosia  Burr,  Prodigy. 

In  the  chapter  upon  Burr's  Watches  there  is  an  allusion,  under  date  of  Jan.  15,  1811,  to 
the  possibility  of  Gamp  having  a  portrait  enamelled  upon  a  watch.  As  Burr  used  Gamp  as  a 
name  for  himself,  as  well  as  for  his  grandson,  I  am  in  doubt  to  whom  it  refers.  In  either  case  it 


<  25  > 


implies  the  existence  of  a  portrait,  and  I  opine  that  it  must  be  the  grandfather's  and  not  the 
grandchild's,  for  had  it  have  been  the  latter  Burr  must  surely  have  made  some  allusion  to  its 
existence  in  his  diary.  It  would  hardly  be  reasonable  to  think  that  Burr,  in  his  hurried  depar- 
ture from  America,  would  burden  himself  with  his  own  painted  visage,  hence  there  is  a  strong 
likelihood,  despite  his  failure  to  mention  any  sittings,  that  he  was  painted  abroad,  most  likely 
by  Vanderlyn.  For  some  time  I  thought  it  barely  possible  that  the  portrait  of  Gamp  referred 
to,  was  the  Jennings'  portrait,  but  the  tradition  that  the  Jennings'  portrait  came  from  the 
Bowrowsons  quickly  refutes  such  reasoning,  and  the  deduction  is  warrantable  that  the  Jen- 
nings' portrait  was  painted  by  Vanderlyn  shortly  after  the  1802  profile  portrait  of  Colonel 
Burr  was  finished.  This  leaves  us  in  doubt  just  what  portrait  of  himself  Burr  referred  to  in  his 
entry  of  Jan.  15, 1811. 


{  26  } 


Aaron  Burr  1809  John  Vanderlyn 

New  York  Historical  Society 


The  1809  Vanderlyn  Portrait 

Of 

Colonel  Burr 


VARIANT  of  the  1802  painting,  in  cabinet  size,  is  owned  by  the  New  York 
Historical  Society.  Burr  is  practically  alike  in  both  pictures  save  there  is  a 
stronger  naso-labial  line  in  the  face  of  the  smaller  painting,  a  more  tightly 
painted  neck  kerchief,  an  architectural  background,  and  the  loose  hair  upon 
his  neck  is  wanting.  There  is  a  baffling  difference,  however,  in  the  execution  of 
the  two  paintings.  In  the  larger  work,  it  has  been  already  stated,  the  paint  is  thinly  laid,  while 
in  the  smaller  painting  it  thickly  and  evenly  coats  the  panel.  Its  fine  crackle  confirms  its  age, 
but  the  method  of  its  execution  is  so  unlike,  that,  despite  the  fact  that  both  paintings  are 
practically  duplicates  of  the  same  man,  at  the  same  age,  their  execution  must  have  been  some 
years  apart.  The  only  solution  of  this  is  that  one  is  a  copy,  with  variations  of  the  other,  by  the 
artist  himself.  In  discussing  the  Vandyck  portrait  mention  is  made  of  the  endorsement  it  re- 
ceived from  Colonel  Burr,  in  which  he  states  it  is  the  best  portrait  of  himself  painted  since 
1809.  The  1809  portrait  he  refers  to  I  believe  is  the  Vanderlyn  cabinet  picture,  in  the  posses- 
sion of  the  New  York  Historical  Society.  This  would  be  an  interval  of  seven  years,  during  a 
portion  of  which  Vanderlyn  had  studied  abroad,  and  naturally  his  technic  would  have 
changed.  Burr,  in  1809,  was  not  accessible  to  Vanderlyn  and  no  portrait  of  Burr  could  have 
been  made  by  this  artist  unless  he  copied  his  own  work  of  1802.  If  read  in  conjunction  with  the 
chapter  on  the  Vandyck  portrait,  this  attribution,  and  the  date  of  the  Historical  Society's 
painting,  receive  additional  confirmation.  The  small  cabinet  painting  was  presented  to  the 
New  York  Historical  Society,  June  7,  1859.  It  was  bought  from  James  H.  Shegogue,  for  $90., 
which  was  raised  by  subscription  from  the  following  donors:  E.  C.  Benedict,  $10.,  A.  M.  Coz- 
zens,  $10.,  Henry  T.  Drowne  $5.,  Benjamin  H.  Field  $10.,  George  Folsom  $10.,  J.  Harsen  $5., 
William  Menzies  $10.,  J.  H.  Shegogue  $10.,  R.  Winthrop  $10.,  and  George  H.  Moore  $10. 
Shegogue  himself,  a  New  York  artist,  subscribed  $10.  Its  history  prior  to  his  ownership  is 
simple.  It  was  among  the  Colonel's  effects  left  in  the  custody  of  Aaron  Columbus  Burr.  Hip- 
poly  te  Burr  copied  this  painting  while  it  was  in  his  father's  possession  and  his  copy  I  have  just 
seen  (Sept.  23,  1923),  in  the  possession  of  Miss  Evelyn  Benedict,  of  45  Pinckney  Street,  Bos- 
ton, Mass.  Apr.  21,  1902,  Robert  D.  Benedict,  Esquire,  of  New  York,  wrote  Mr.  Pidgin  that 
he  had  for  sale  a  portrait  of  Aaron  Burr,  about  12  inches  square,  by  an  unknown  artist,  "but 
the  likeness  is  a  good  one."  It  was  given  to  Henry  J.  Raymond,  founder  of  the  New  York 
Times,  by  a  man  who  claimed  to  be  an  illegitimate  son  of  Colonel  Burr.  The  picture  was  not 
sold,  and  Miss  Benedict  says  it  was  then  given  by  her  aunt  Mrs.  Raymond  to  her  father, 
Robert  D.  Benedict,  and  from  him  it  passed  to  her.  The  original  portrait  must  have  passed 
from  Aaron  Columbus  Burr  to  Shegogue. 


i  27  } 


The  margin  of  safety  for  the  deduction  of  Vanderlyn's  presence  in  America  in  1809,  I 
realize  is  small.  Dunlap  fails  to  state  it,  and  if  it  were  an  omission,  Vanderlyn  could  have  cor- 
rected it,  if  he  so  wished,  for  the  History  of  the  Arts  of  Design  was  yet  unprinted.  Vanderlyn 
had  returned  to  Europe  early  in  1810,  for  Burr  notes  in  his  diary,  Feb.  23,  1810,  that  the 
American,  Capt.  Hadley,  "told  me  Vanderlyn  is  in  Paris  and  hunting  for  me.  I  thought  him  in 
Rome."  Burr  soon  caught  up  with  him,  for  three  days  later  he  notes  his  arrival  in  Paris  and  a 
call  upon  Vanderlyn.  Should  it  so  happen  that  Vanderlyn's  residence,  in  1809,  is  proven  to  be 
in  Europe,  and  not  in  the  States,  this  hypothesis  falls  to  the  ground  and  the  resultant  confu- 
sion must  be  removed  by  further  investigation.  I  have  even  tried  to  admit  the  possibility  of 
the  1809  portrait  being  an  unlocated  portrait  by  the  artist  Breda,  but  Burr  says  that  Breda's 
portraits  are  very  highly  colored,  and  while  I  know  none  for  comparison,  I  find  the  internal 
evidence,  the  diary  and  the  want  of  tradition  are  all  against  it. 

The  1809  portrait  of  Colonel  Burr  appears  in  an  article  by  William  B.  McCormick,  in  the 
International  Studio,  called:  A  Backwater  Oj  American  Art.  Portraits  of  the  New  York  Histori- 
cal Society.  Also  in  E.  J.  Edwards'  magazine  article  Tammany. 


i  28  } 


Aaron  Burr 

Dr.  John  E.  Slillwell 


Henry  Inman 


The  Inman  Portrait 

Of 

Colonel  Burr 


wmrm 


j  AM  impelled  to  call  the  remarkably  fine  water  color  miniature  of  Colonel  Burr, 
in  my  possession,  the  work  of  Henry  Inman,  not  because  of  certitude  but  be- 
cause it  needs  an  author  and  because  it  was  so  called  when  it  passed  to  me, 
Oct.  1,  1885.  I  well  recall,  however,  the  halting,  stumbling  way  in  which  its 
owner,  Hip  Burr  made  this  attribution  and  the  doubt  of  its  correctness  then 
implanted  in  my  mind  still  abides  with  me.  Judged  by  the  lines  in  his  face  and  the  whiteness 
of  his  hair,  Col.  Burr  may  have  reached  the  age  of  seventy  years,  which  would  make  the  date 
of  the  production  of  the  miniature  be  about  1826,  and  Henry  Inman,  the  artist,  about  twenty- 
four  or  twenty-five  years  of  age.  Inman  was  born  in  Utica,  New  York,  Oct.  28,  1801,  studied 
under  J.  W.  Jarvis,  in  New  York,  became  prominent  as  a  portraitist,  settled  in  Philadelphia 
about  1832,  visited  Europe  about  1845,  and  painted  a  number  of  English  celebrities,  returned 
to  this  country,  lived  in  New  York  where  he  died,  at  the  age  of  forty-four,  Jan.  17, 1846.  These 
movements  rather  confirm  than  disprove  the  likelihood  of  the  attribution  to  Inman.  It  origi- 
nally was  enclosed  in  a  fine  morocco  case  and  the  history  was  that  it  came  to  Aaron  Columbus 
Burr  as  an  heirloom.  My  interpretation  of  this  is  that  it  was  another  one  of  the  pieces  left  in 
the  custody  of  Aaron  Columbus  Burr.  Even  though  its  attribution  is  not  satisfactorily  con- 
firmed to  me,  it  remains  a  work  of  great  excellence. 

The  miniature  is  painted  on  a  heavy  white  paper  4}/£  inches  by  3%  inches  in  size.  The 
background  is  shaded  black  and  white.  Col.  Burr  is  portrayed  at  nearly  half-length,  the  right 
side  of  his  body  slightly  rotated  forward,  and  his  face  nearly  full.  He  wears  a  fight  blue  coat 
with  a  heavy  roll,  a  vest  of  similar  material  and  a  soft  white  collar  with  kerchief.  His  forehead 
is  high  and  massive,  his  head  surmounted  by  a  fair  amount  of  white  hair,  his  complexion  pink 
and  white,  his  eyes  a  piercing  dark  brown  and  his  face  somewhat  shortened  by  the  settling  of 
his  jaws.  His  expression  is  humorous  and  interrogative  rather  than  intellectual.  The  workman- 
ship is  most  satisfactory,  being  done  with  a  free  brush  and  certain  stroke. 

If  Col.  Burr  were  sixty-five  years  of  age  rather  than  seventy  when  this  miniature  was 
painted,  it  would  make  Inman  only  nineteen  or  twenty  years  old,  and  so  excellent  a  work 
could  hardly  have  emanated  from  such  youthful  and  inexperienced  hands.  Burr's  singularly 
well  preserved  features  and  florid  color  gives  so  much  latitude  to  deduction  as  to  his  age  that 
the  authoriship  of  the  miniature  must  be  solely  deduced  from  its  technic,  but  he  may  have 
easily  been  in  his  seventieth  year  and  upwards. 

Hippolyte  Burr  made  a  copy  of  this  painting  in  oil,  but  it  was  so  poor  that  I  bought  it  and 
destroyed  it.  And  it  is  just  as  well  to  repeat  here  that  which  is  set  forth  elsewhere  in  these 
articles,  that  Hip  Burr  accurately  copied  with  a  tight  brush  on  a  large  scale,  the  small  Van- 
dyck  painting  and  that  both  of  these,  original  and  copy,  are  in  my  possession  (1926);  and 
further  that  he  copied  the  small  Vanderlyn  portrait  owned  by  the  New  York  Historical  Society 
which  copy  is  now  owned  by  Miss  Benedict,  of  Boston,  Mass. 


{  29  } 


The  Vandyck  Portrait 

Of 

Colonel  Burr 

OLONEL  BURR  was  about  seventy-eight  years  of  age  when  he  went  to  reside 
with  his  son,  Aaron  Columbus  Burr,  at  the  corner  of  the  Bowery  and  Grand 
Street,  New  York  City.  A  few  blocks  away  there  dwelt  a  miniature  painter  by 
the  name  of  James  Vandyck.  He  was  one  of  the  painstaking,  conscientious  lim- 
ners, working  in  New  York  in  the  middle  of  the  19th  century,  who  seldom  at- 
tained great  distinction.  Aside  from  his  portrait  of  Colonel  Burr,  I  have  seen  nothing  from  his 
brush.  Judged  by  this  work  he  was  a  correct  draftsman,  a  rather  brilliant  colorist  and  a  hard 
technician.  Theodore  Bolton  (Early  American  Portrait  Painters  In  Miniature)  says  that  he 
flourished  between  1806  and  1835,  and  that  in  The  Polyanthus  for  June,  1806,  there  appears  an 
engraving  by  S.  Harris  after  Vandyck's  portrait  of  John  Winthrop,  and  suggests  that  possibly 
the  Vandyck  who  painted  the  Winthrop  painting  was  identical  with  James  Vandyck  who 
flourished  between  1806  and  1835,  and  was  the  same  James  Vandyck  who  painted  the  portrait 
of  James  Lyon  (owned  in  1928)  by  Luke  Vincent  Lockwood,  Esquire,  of  New  York  City.  This 
painting  is  signed  on  the  right  hand  side  J.  Vandyck. 

References  to  Vandyck,  in  the  New  York  City  directories  are  limited  to  the  year  1834-5, 
when  his  residence  is  given  as  62  Forsyth  Street,  and  to  the  year  1836,  when  his  residence  is 
given  as  48  Vesey  Street.  Neither  before  nor  after  these  dates  does  his  name  appear,  and  from 
the  apparent  shortness  of  his  stay,  it  might  be  a  just  surmise  that,  his  sitter  being  a  Winthrop, 
he  came  from  New  England.  Vandyck  had  another  residence  or  studio  not  mentioned  in  the 
city  directories.  This  appears  as  part  of  an  inscription,  pasted  upon  the  back  of  Col.  Burr's 
portrait,  and  is  named  as  18  Centre  Street,  Room  N°.  3. 

The  Vandyck  portrait  came  into  my  (Dr.  John  E.  Stillwell)  possession,  Oct.  2,  1919,  by 
purchase  from  Henry  Alloway,  Esq.,  of  Goshen,  N.  Y.,  a  collector  of  Burr  material,  with  the 
statement  that  he  had  "obtained  it  from  a  dispersion  of  the  belongings  of  the  artist  Falconer" 
— nothing  more.  The  gap  between  Falconer's  ownership  and  the  origin  of  the  painting  may  be 
partially  filled.  The  corner  of  the  Bowery  and  Broome  Street  is  but  a  stone's  tlirow  from  For- 
syth Street,  and  doubtless  artist  and  sitter  were  known  to  each  other.  That  the  recently  ar- 
rived artist  Vandyck  volunteered  his  services  is  likely,  for  Burr  had  just  separated  from  his 
wife,  was  probably  shy  of  funds  and  had  little  or  no  occasion  to  wish  a  portrait  of  himself 
painted,  though  probably  not  averse  to  it.  Upon  the  back  of  the  painting  is  pasted  a  rapidly 
fading  written  inscription,  which  will  soon  totally  disappear,  which  recites  as  follows :  Aaron 
Burr,  painted  in  1834,  in  six  sittings  by  James  van  Dyck.  If  not  satisfactory,  return  to  18 
Centre  St.  Room  N°.  3.  And  apart  from  this  in  two  distinct  places:  Arnold,  and:  20.  They 
may  have  no  relation  to  each  other  though  the  number  suggests  an  auction  mark.  The  phrase- 


{  30  > 


Aaron  Burr 


Dr.  John  E.  Slillwell 


James  Vandyck 


ology  "If  not  satisfactory  return  to  18  Centre  St.",  bears  out  the  suggestion  that  the  portrait 
was  a  venture  of  the  artist's  rather  than  an  order  of  Burr's.  It  apparently  proved  satisfactory 
to  Burr  and  it  is  probable  that  he  bought  it,  and  that  it  passed  with  his  other  effects  to  Aaron 
Columbus  Burr  after  his  father's  death.  A  large  facsimile  of  this  painting  in  oil,  26  inches  by 
31  inches,  was  owned  by  Aaron  Columbus  Burr  in  1882.  Its  existence  was  known  in  the  fam- 
ily, but  its  location  was  not.  After  several  hunts  it  was  exhumed  from  the  cellar,  dust  covered 
and  punctured,  and  bought  by  me.  It  was  then  represented  by  the  unreliable  Hip  Burr  as  the 
original  Vandyck  painting,  which  I  believed  for  many  years  and  only  detected  my  error  when 
I  found  the  Alloway  painting.  The  self  satisfied  artist  Vandyck,  said  Hip  Burr,  asked  the  Colo- 
nel what  he  thought  of  it,  to  which  Burr  replied  "Well  Sir  if  you  have  been  trying  to  paint  a 
blacksmith  you  have  made  a  success  of  it."  It  is  not  conceivable  that  the  urbane  Col.  Burr 
could  have  uttered  so  rude  a  remark,  and  we  have  Burr's  own  high  valuation  of  it:  Southern 
District  of  New  York.  I  certify  that  the  Portrait  by  Vandyke  is  the  best  Likeness  ever  Painted  of 
me  since  1809.  N.  York  1st  Jany  1834.  A.  Burr.  This  attestation  was  printed  beneath  a  litho- 
graphic copy  of  the  Vandyck  portrait,  now  very  rare,  which  proves  a  very  accurate  reproduc- 
tion though  a  trifle  larger  than  the  original  painting  being  113^  inches  by  9%  inches. 

The  fertile  Hip  Burr  again  was  in  evidence  when  he  informed  me  that  his  father,  Aaron 
Columbus  Burr,  had  had  this  lithograph  made  in  anticipation  of  Col.  Burr's  death,  and  that 
the  day  it  was  announced,  the  engraving  was  hawked  about  the  streets  by  hue  and  cry;  that 
few  were  sold  and  that  the  stone  and  many  of  the  prints  still  existed  somewhere  among  the 
family.  This  story  too  is  hardly  believable  even  if  it  were  conformable  to  the  facts.  It  is  much 
easier  to  believe  that  Aaron  Columbus  Burr  and  his  family  did  not  originally  own  the  small 
Vandyck  painting  and  that  the  Colonel  gave  the  attestation  to  the  artist  upon  request,  who, 
at  an  unknown  date,  but  probably  shortly  following  Burr's  death,  had  it  lithographed  for  sale, 
and  that  the  Aaron  Columbus  Burr  family  acquired  it  only  in  later  years. 

One  thing  militates  against  all  these  statements  and  deductions.  Burr  sat  for  no  portrait 
in  1809.  No  such  event  could  have  escaped  being  noted  in  his  diary.  During  his  travels,  in 
1809,  he  only  came  in  contact  with  one  artist,  the  Swedish  painter  Breda.  Early  in  1808,  Burr 
was  in  hiding  preparatory  to  sailing  to  England;  he  arrived  in  London,  July  16,  1808,  and  left 
for  a  trip  in  Scotland,  Dec.  22,  1808;  February,  1809,  he  was  back  in  London,  where,  Apr.  4, 
1809,  he  became  practically  a  prisoner  of  state,  because  of  his  presence  creating  possible  polit- 
ical complications  with  the  United  States;  he  was  then  asked  to  remove  himself,  which  he  did, 
going  to  Sweden,  thence  to  Germany,  Oct.  21,  1809,  and  to  Paris,  Feb.  16,  1810.  This  covers 
the  year  1809  very  thoroughly  and  we  are  left  to  select  the  alternatives  of  a  defective  memory 
on  Burr's  part,  or  a  forged  attestation  to  the  lithograph. 

There  is  one  escape  from  this  dilemma  which  would,  if  accepted,  quash  at  once  the  sug- 
gestions of  defect  in  memory  and  fraudulent  attestation.  In  1809  Burr  was  in  Europe,  and 
treated  as  a  persona  non  grata.  We  know  from  his  diary  his  every  movement  and  that  he  had 
practically  no  opportunity  to  sit  for  a  portrait.  Vanderlyn  was  not  with  him  and  no  mention  is 
made  of  this  artist's  whereabouts  in  1809. 1  believe,  in  the  face  of  no  evidence  to  the  contrary, 
that  Vanderlyn  was  in  the  United  States  in  1809.  Burr  could  not  sit  for  him,  but  no  doubt 
Vanderlyn  had  access  to  the  portrait  of  Burr  that  he  had  painted  in  the  winter  of  1802,  and 


<  31  } 


this,  copied  in  cabinet  size  with  variations,  is,  in  my  modest  opinion,  the  one  that  Burr  refers 
to  in  his  attestation  on  the  lithograph  of  the  small  Vandyck  portrait,  as  the  1809  portrait  and 
is  the  one  which  is  now  owned  by  the  New  York  Historical  Society,  and  correctly  called  the 
work  of  Vanderlyn.  In  the  chapter  devoted  to  Vanderlyn,  this  subject  is  further  treated. 

Of  the  origin  of  the  large  Vandyck  portrait,  which  I  bought,  Nov.  6, 1882,  from  Hip  Burr, 
there  is  little  doubt.  It  is,  in  my  estimation,  a  copy  by  Hippolyte  Burr  of  the  smaller  work. 
Certainly  he  who  painted  the  big  portrait  had  access  to  the  small  one.  Its  identical  color 
scheme  and  the  details  of  its  drawing,  even  to  the  small  finger  ring,  prove  this;  and  its  very 
tightness  is  what  one  would  expect  in  a  copy  when  a  painter  attempts  to  reproduce  a  small 
work  on  a  large  scale.  Hip  Burr  was  no  mean  artist  himself,  and  though  he  was  not  more  than 
four  or  five  years  of  age  when  Colonel  Burr  died,  this  does  not  exclude  him  as  the  copyist. 
That  the  large  painting  was  copied  from  the  lithograph  I  cannot  conceive,  for  it  follows  more 
closely  the  small  Vandyck  painting  than  the  engraving.  By  whose  ever  hand  the  large  painting 
may  be  it  is  a  mediocre  work,  though  perhaps  a  good  likeness.  On  the  other  hand  the  small 
Vandyck  portrait  of  Colonel  Burr  possesses  genuine  merit  and  no  doubt  was  an  excellent  like- 
ness. It  is  painted  upon  a  pine  (oak?)  panel  9%  inches  by  7%  inches.  Burr  is  seated  in  a  ma- 
hogany arm  chair  upholstered  in  red.  He  is  shown  at  knee-length  with  his  arms  folded,  full 
face,  body  slightly  rotated.  He  wears  a  blue  coat  with  brown  lapels  and  cuffs  and  a  black  vest 
and  a  rolled,  two  button  white  collar.  His  complexion  is  fresh,  pink  and  white,  his  hair  gray 
and  diminished,  and  atop  his  head  he  wears  his  spectacles,  the  same  glasses  that  Mrs.  Stephens, 
the  authoress,  so  touchingly  alludes  to  in  her  letter  which  follows. 

St  Cloud  Hotel,  June  16,  1876. 

My  dear  Sir: — 

In  response  to  your  suggestion  from  our  mutual  and  good  friend  Mr.  E.  N.  Dickerson — 
who  is  only  perfectly  happy  when  he  is  contributing  to  the  happiness  of  others — I  take  plea- 
ure  in  sending  you  the  glasses  that  Aaron  Burr  used  at  the  time  of  his  death.  During  his  last 
illness  he  was  the  honored  guest  of  an  English  lady  of  high  birth — who  was  then  or  afterwards 
became  Mrs.  Joshua  Webb.  She  was  the  daughter  of  a  gentleman  who  had  known  and  greatly 
befriended  Burr  during  his  stay  in  Europe.  In  this  country  she  revived  the  old  friendship  and 
carried  it  out  faithfully  to  the  end.  When  most  in  need  of  womanly  kindness  and  care  he  was 
removed  to  her  house  and  received  from  her  all  the  attention  a  daughter  could  have  bestowed. 
Being  herself  a  woman  of  great  ability  and  most  generous  heart,  she  would  appreciate  his  true 
character  and  feel,  with  keenness,  the  injustice  done  to  it.  Every  paper  that  Burr  possessed 
went  through  this  lady's  hands  and  was  submitted  to  Judge  Edwards,  before  it  was  used  or 
destroyed.  And  she  affirmed,  most  solemnly  to  me,  that  there  was  not  a  letter  or  a  fine  com- 
promising any  one  in  the  whole  collection.  A  week  or  two  before  his  death  Burr  went  to  Staten 
Island,  hoping  to  benefit  by  change  of  air,  but  was  never  able  to  return  to  his  rooms  in  New 
York.  When  he  was  dying  these  glasses  lay  on  a  table  close  to  his  bed.  Reaching  out  his  hand, 
he  touched  them  saying  feebly  "Give  these  to  the  Madam!"  I  think  these  were  the  last  words 
Burr  ever  spoke.  Certainly  the  glasses  were  the  last  object  he  ever  touched.  After  his  death 
Judge  Edwards  delivered  them  to  Mrs.  Webb  who  kept  them  sacredly  until  her  own  death, 


{  32  > 


when  she  gave  them  to  me,  exactly  as  they  came  from  Burr's  own  hand.  Since  then,  though  I 
never  knew  this  remarkable  man  personally,  I  have  kept  the  glasses  with  great  care,  allowing 
no  one  to  touch  them  and,  but  for  the  effect  of  time  on  the  silver,  they  are,  even  to  an  attempt 
at  mending,  which  he  had  made,  exactly  as  he  last  wore  them.  Knowing  that  I  may  give  some 
pleasure  to  the  best  friend  I  have — and  feeling  that  you,  as  a  relative  of  the  dead  statesman 
will  prize  an  object  so  completely  associated  with  his  person,  I  have  great  satisfaction  in  ask- 
ing your  acceptance  of  the  relic. 

Very  Respectfully 

Ann  S.  Stephens. 

Henry  A.  Burr,  Esq.,  New  York. 

The  lithograph  of  the  Vandyck  painting  is  reproduced  satisfactorily  in  The  Magazine  of 
American  History,  November,  1884. 

Edward  Dexter,  son  and  successor  of  the  old  New  York  print  seller,  Elias  Dexter,  had  the 
head  and  torso  of  the  lithograph  engraved  by  E.  G.  Williams  &  Brother,  New  York,  about 
1880.  In  this  form  it  illustrates  Edgar  Fawcett's  A  Romantic  Wrong  Doer,  in  the  Cosmopolitan 
for  October,  1897. 

Henry  Austin's  magazine  article  on  Famous  Duels  also  uses  it. 

In  The  Boss  and  The  Machine  (Yale  Alumni  Association  Publishing  Co.)  is  a  gravure  by 
Andarsen  Lamb,  L'd.,  New  York,  inscribed  "Pen  drawing  after  a  painting  by  J.  Vandyke,  in 
the  possession  of  the  late  E.  A.  Duyckinck."  The  drawing  is  an  execrable  copy  of  the  engraving 
made  for  Edward  Dexter  and  succeeds  in  making  Burr  look  like  an  idiot. 


i  33  } 


Casts  And  Busts 


The  Turnerelli  Marble  Bust 


m 


N  THE  Winter  of  1883,  now  some  forty-five  years  ago,  I  inserted  in  the  English 
magazine,  Notes  $  Queries,  a  request  for  information  concerning  the  sculptor 
Turnerelli  and  the  bust  that  he  made  of  Aaron  Burr  in  1808.  A  correspondent, 
Mr.  James  Dixon,  of  Dorking,  Surrey,  wrote  saying  that  he  knew  nothing  of 
the  bust,  but  supplied  the  following  information: 
"Turnerelli,  Peter,  sculptor,  was  born  at  the  latter  end  of  1774,  at  Belfast.  His  father  was 
an  Italian  modeller,  and  resided  many  years  in  Dublin ;  his  mother  was  a  native  of  that  city. 
He  was  intended  for  the  priesthood,  but  a  love  of  art  prevailed.  He  came  to  London  at  the  age 
of  18,  was  placed  with  M.  Chesne,  an  able  artist,  and  admitted  a  student  of  the  Royal  Aca- 
demy. His  works  early  attracted  notice  and  employment.  He  was  engaged  to  teach  the  Prin- 
cess of  Wales,  and  also  many  of  the  nobility,  modelling  in  wax,  and  he  exhibited  the  infant 
Princess  Charlotte  in  wax,  which  was  much  admired.  In  1810,  George  the  3rd  sat  to  him  for 
his  bust,  and  the  work  was  so  popular  that  he  made  no  less  than  eighty  copies  of  it  in  marble. 
He  was  appointed  sculptor  to  the  Queen  and  also  to  the  Princess  of  Wales.  Some  of  the  most 
distinguished  men  of  the  day  were  his  sitters,  and  in  1813,  when  he  visited  the  continent, 
Louis  18th  sat  to  him  for  his  bust.  He  executed  several  monumental  works;  Sir  John  Moore, 
in  Canterbury  Cathedral,  Admiral  Sir  John  Hope,  in  Westminster  Abbey ;  and  Burns  at  his 
plough,  for  the  Dumfries  monument.  He  died  after  a  few  hour's  illness,  in  Newman  Street, 
March  20th,  1839,  leaving  a  wife  and  family  in  great  destitution.  He  had  the  reputation  of 
being  a  charming  amateur  singer."  Redgrave's  Dictionary  Of  Artists  Of  The  English  School. 
8  vo.  London,  1878. 

Burr  moved  with  the  procession  of  notables  wending  its  way  to  the  popular  sculptor's 
studio.  The  venerable  sage  and  philosopher,  Jeremy  Bentham  had  sat  to  him  for  his  bust  and 
Burr  sought  a  copy  of  it  from  the  sculptor: 

Sept.  2,  1808,  in  a  letter  written  to  his  friend  Bentham,  he  says:  "Turnerelli  refuses  to 
give  or  sell  me  a  bust  without  your  order.  Will  you  be  pleased  to  send  me  such  order  for  one  or 
two,  as  he  may  agree  .  .  .  One  I  must  have  for  your  little  friend  and  admirer,  Theodosia." 
Burr  thereupon  secured  the  bust.  It  was  boxed  and  sent  by  the  Hopewell,  a  vessel  sailing  be- 
tween England  and  the  United  States,  which  was  seized,  however,  by  the  French.  "It  is  con- 
jectured here  that  the  box  in  question  contained  the  bust.  This  is  melancholy,  but  might  it 
not  be  practicable  by  a  letter  to  Talleyrand  to  procure,  if  not  the  restoration  of  the  box,  at 
least  the  safe  keeping  of  the  contents." 

With  the  thought  of  his  daughter  Theodosia  ever  uppermost  in  his  mind,  Burr  decided  to 
have  himself  sculped,  and  entered  in  his  Diary  a  number  of  references  to  his  amusing,  even  if 
somewhat  distressing  experiences  in  that  procedure. 

Nov.  23, 1808.  "When  returning  home,  called  at  Turnerelli's,  the  statuary,  and  engaged 
to  give  him  a  sitting  tomorrow." 

i  34  } 


Nov.  24.  "Went  to  Turnerelli's.  He  would  have  a  mask.  I  consented,  because  Bentham  et 
others  had.  A  very  unpleasant  ceremony"  .  .  .  "Just  as  we  were  going  out,  casting  my  eyes  in 
the  mirror,  I  observed  a  great  purple  mark  on  my  nose.  Went  up  and  washed  it,  rubbed  it — 
all  to  no  purpose.  It  was  indelible.  That  cursed  mask  business  has  occasioned  it.  I  believe  the 
fellow  used  quick  lime  instead  of  plaster  of  Paris,  for  I  felt  a  very  unpleasant  degree  of  heat 
during  the  operation.  I  sent  Sir  Mark  [Sir  Mark  A.  Gerard]  off,  resolved  to  see  no  signora  [a 
Corsican  lady,  widow  of  a  British  officer]  till  the  proboscis  be  in  order." 

25  Nov.  "Nose  the  same.  At  eleven  went  to  Turnerelli's  to  sit.  Relieved  myself  by  abusing 
him  for  the  nose  disaster.  He  bore  it  like  one  conscious,  and  endeavoured  to  console  me  by 
stating  that  the  same  tiling  happened  to  Lord  Melville,  and  to  several  others,  and  that  the 
appearance  passed  off  in  a  few  days.  Took  a  hack,  not  liking  to  walk  and  exhibit  my  nose. 
Stayed  two  hours  with  Turnerelli.  He  will  make  a  most  hideous,  frightful  thing,  but  much 
like  the  original.  After  leaving  T.,  being  unfit  for  any  reasonable  thing,  rode  to  Madam  O's  to 
apprize  her,"  etc. 

27.  "From  Reeves'  walked  on  to  visit  the  donna;  but  recollecting  my  nose,  walked  home." 

28.  "Nose  a  little  improved  . . .  Waited  till  one  for  Tom's  return,  and  then  went  to  T.  Sat 
one  hr.  Worse  and  worse.  This  was  meant  to  please  you;  but  if  I  had  suspected  that  I  had 
become  so  ugly,  I  would  sooner  have  ." 

Dec.  1,  1808.  Lond.  "To  Turnerelli's — abroad.  I  am  glad  of  it;  for  I  would  give  five 
guineas  that  the  thing  were  demolished." 

2.  "To  T's  who  had  been  to  hunt  me.  Sat  only  twenty  minutes.  He  is  determined  to  go 
through  with  it.  Tries  to  encourage  me.  Finds  it  wonderfully  like  Voltaire;  but  all  won't  do. 
It  is  a  horrid  piece  of  deformity." 

5  Dec.  '08. . . .  "to  Turnerelli's,  where  sat  an  hour." 

7.  "To  Turnerelli's — not  at  home.  Shall  never  be  done  with  that  fellow,  and  yet  he  tries 
his  best;  but  the  strange  irregularities  and  deformities  of  the  face  defies  all  art." 

Saturday  10.  "To  Turnerelli's  at  two.  I  wish  I  never  had  begun  with  him." 

Laurence  Hutton,  in  his  work  on  Death-Masks,  incidentally  alludes  to  this  work  of  Tur- 
nerelli's, and  says  it  was  exhibited  at  the  Royal  Academy,  in  1809,  and  in  a  personal  com- 
munication to  me,  Nov.  4,  1892,  states  "I  have  never  been  able  to  find  the  bust  of  Aaron  Burr 
by  Turnerelli,  nor  any  trace  of  it,  I  am  sorry  to  say." 

March  25,  1812,  Burr  entered  in  his  Diary  "Also  a  note  to  Koe  about  Natalie's  picture, 
which  I  had  for  three  years  past  supposed  to  be  finally  lost,  but  which  I  found  in  his  bed- 
chamber a  few  days  ago.  Directed  him  to  send  it  to  W.  Graves,  who  will  send  it  to  me,  with 
other  things."  The  bust  may  have  been  forwarded  "with  the  other  things,"  but  forty  years  of 
desultory  searching  upon  my  part  has  failed  to  bring  it  to  light.  Still  much  less  likely  is  there  a 
possibility  of  the  original  Turnerelli  mask  being  extant.  With  the  bust  finished,  this  would 
probably  have  gone  into  the  discard. 


<  35  } 


The  Fowler  And  Wells  Bust 


URR'S  numerous  earthly  migrations  ceased  at  Port  Richmond,  Staten  Island 
Here  he  peacefully  died  Sept.  14,  1836.  He  had  ^withdrawn  thither  from  New 
York  to  the  quiet  of  a  small  country  hotel  hoping  to  benefit  his  health,  as  well 
as  to  receive  the  ministrations  of  his  loyal  kinsman,  Judge  Ogden  Edwards, 
whose  attractive  residence  still  stands  at  West  Brighton,  occupied  by  Arthur 
A.  Michell,  Esq.  Some  years  ago  an  account  of  an  interview  with  Mr.  O.  W.  Buell,  of  Port 
Richmond,  who  prepared  Burr's  remains  for  the  undertaker,  appeared  in  the  columns  of  the 
New  York  Sun.  Mr.  Buell  was  along  in  years,  but  his  memory  of  persons  and  events  was  dis- 
tinctly good  and  his  narrative  entertaining:  "A  mysterious  stranger,  who  fairly  haunted  the 
house  and  made  interested  inquiries  during  Col.  Burr's  last  illness,  without  being  admitted  to 
his  presence,  finally  turned  out  to  be  neither  relative,  friend  nor  acquaintance,  though  until 
then  supposed  to  be  one  or  the  other  . . ."  "He  was  a  good-looking,  non  committal  young  man, 
with  a  carpet  bag,  who  began  to  come  down  here  regularly  by  the  last  boat  every  day  for  a 
fortnight  or  so  preceding  Aaron  Burr's  death.  But  the  mystery  all  came  out  shortly  after  Col. 
Burr's  death.  I  was  hired  to  lay  out  the  body,  as  I  have  told  you.  It  was  well  on  into  the  even- 
ing and  I  had  just  finished  my  task,  when  there  was  a  knock  at  the  door.  I  opened  it,  and  who 
do  you  suppose  was  there?  The  mysterious  stranger,  carpet-bag  and  all,  with  a  business-like 
air  and  a  satisfied  grin  on  his  face.  He  cast  a  single  glance  on  the  dead  man's  face,  sat  down  and 
opened  his  carpet-bag,  exposing  its  contents,  appropriated  the  wash  bowl  and  water  pitcher 
and  set  to  work  in  a  nimble,  matter-of-fact  way,  and  without  asking  leave  of  anybody.  The 
secret  of  his  long  and  patient  perseverence  was  then  manifest.  He  was  an  artist  and  had  been 
waiting  all  those  days  and  nights  for  just  the  opportunity  that  was  his  at  last — the  propitious 
hour  directly  after  death,  when  a  perfect  plaster-of-Paris  cast  of  the  head  and  features  could 
be  taken  before  the  symptoms  of  decay  made  themselves  visible."  The  so-called  artist  had 
been  employed  at  a  cost  of  $50.,  by  the  then  recently  established  firm  of  phrenologists,  Fowler 
and  Wells,  of  New  York.  These  followers  of  Gall  and  Spurzheim  described  the  cast  as  a  face 
shortened  by  the  loss  of  teeth  and  the  head  marked  by  excessive  amativeness,  destructiveness, 
combativeness,  firmness  and  large  self  esteem.  Poor  old  man !  How  the  beauty  of  youth  and 
the  strength  of  manhood  had  deserted  him!  How  his  disfigured,  battered  features  were  cruelly 
analyzed  long  after  these  attributed  qualities  had  long  been  lost!  Mr.  Buell  said  that  Burr  had 
"a  somewhat  hatchet  face,  whose  dignity  was  slightly  marred  by  a  thin  aquiline  nose,  having 
a  decided  twist  or  bend  to  one  side,  either  through  some  accident  or  by  natural  malformation." 
Though  his  portraitists  ignored  the  fact,  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  lower  half  of  his  nose  was 
out  of  plumb.  Burr  himself  recognized  the  fact  when  he  alluded  to  the  strange  irregularities 
and  deformities  of  his  face  which  defied  all  the  art  of  the  sculptor  Turnerelli  to  make  his  cast 
in  1808.  And  the  writer  in  The  Port  Folio,  under  date  of  Aug.  30,  1805,  in  his  pen  picture  of 
Burr,  confirms  this  in  his  description — "his  nose  is  nearly  rectilinear,  too  slender  between  the 


i  36  } 


eyes,  rather  inclined  to  the  right  side;  gently  elevated,  which  betrays  a  degree  of  haughtiness ; 
too  obtuse  at  the  end  for  great  acuteness  of  penetration,  brilliancy  of  wit  or  poignancy  of  sa- 
tire, and  too  small  to  sustain  his  ample  and  capacious  forehead." 

The  Fowler  and  Wells  cast  without  doubt  shows  this  feature  of  Burr's  face  in  a  magnified 
degree;  the  aged  shrunken  tissues,  as  well  as  death  itself,  would  naturally  intensify  the  ap- 
pearance of  this  deformity. 

This  cast  has  been  used  by  Fowler  and  Wells  to  illustrate  their  work,  and  also  by  Laur- 
ence Hutton  in  his  magazine  article  on  A  Collection  Of  Death  Masks. 


{  37  > 


The  Jacques  Jouvenal  Bust 


N  THE  construction  of  the  extension  of  the  Capitol  and  the  completion  of  the 
Senate  Chamber  and  the  Hall  of  the  House  of  Representatives  niches  were 
provided  in  the  gallery  floors  of  each  of  these  rooms  set  apart  for  legislative 
purposes,  the  idea  being  stated  by  Capt.  M.  C.  Meigs,  the  constructor  in 
charge  of  the  Capitol,  that  if  niches  were  provided,  works  of  art  would  be  pro- 
vided later  to  fill  these  vacant  spaces." 

In  1859,  with  this  in  mind,  an  Art  Commission  was  created  but  its  recommendation,  for 
paintings  and  sculpture,  failing  to  receive  the  approval  of  Congress,  was  abolished  in  1860. 
Some  time  elapsed  before  another  effort  was  made,  but,  January  27th,  1886,  a  resolution  was 
submitted  to  the  Senate — That  the  Committee  on  the  Library  be  directed  to  consider  the 
subject  of  placing  busts  of  Vice  Presidents  ...  in  the  vacant  niches  of  the  Senate  Chamber 
and  its  corridors.  This  was  unanimously  agreed  to  and  February  4th,  1886,  the  Library  Com- 
mittee agreed  that  if  this  object  could  be  accomplished  by  the  use  of  the  contingent  fund  of 
the  Senate  it  would  introduce  a  favorable  resolution.  Four  days  later,  February  8th,  1886,  it 
was  "Resolved,  That  marble  busts  of  those  who  have  been  Vice  Presidents  of  the  United 
States  shall  be  placed  in  the  vacant  niches  of  the  Senate  Chamber  from  time  to  time,"  etc. 
Annual  Report  of  the  Architect  Of  The  Capitol,  1928. 

The  work  of  providing  Aaron  Burr's  bust,  Vice  President  from  March  4,  1801,  to  March 
3,  1805,  fell  to  Jacques  Jouvenal,  a  sculptor  "who  for  many  years  lived  in  Washington,  and 
died  in  that  city  on  the  8th  day  of  March,  1905.  Mr.  Jouvenal  was  of  old  Huguenot  stock  and 
was  born  in  Pinache,  Germany,  March  18,  1829.  His  parents  were  obliged  to  flee  from  the 
south  of  France  on  account  of  religious  principles.  At  the  age  of  16  he  commenced  his  art 
study  under  the  instruction  of  Klammer,  of  Stuttgart,  Germany.  Emigrating  to  the  United 
States  in  1853,  he  remained  in  New  York  until  1855,  when  he  moved  to  Washington  and  com- 
menced work  on  the  capitals  of  the  columns  of  the  Capitol,  where  he  was  employed  for  five 
years.  His  services  terminated  at  the  commencement  of  the  War  of  the  Rebellion.  His  first 
work  as  a  portrait  sculptor  was  the  bust  of  Von  Steuben  at  the  German  Orphan  Asylum.  His 
statue  of  Benjamin  Franklin  is  at  the  intersection  of  Tenth  Street  and  Pennsylvania  Avenue, 
Washington,  D.  C."  Art  and  Artists  of  the  Capitol,  by  Charles  E.  Fairman,  a  well  compiled  and 
interesting  work. 

As  Aaron  Burr  was  born  in  1756  and  died  in  1836,  and  Jouvenal  was  born  in  1829  and 
died  in  1905,  the  sculptor  was  but  seven  years  old  when  the  Vice  President  died,  hence  it  fol- 
lows that  the  bust  was  not  a  contemporary  work  but  a  much  later  creation,  based  upon  a  por- 
trait which,  by  the  exclusion  of  the  Gilbert  Stuart  portrait  as  being  too  young,  and  the  Van- 
dyck  portrait  as  being  too  old,  must  have  been  modelled  from  the  only  other  full  faced  like- 
ness known,  that  by  Vanderlyn,  then  owned  by  the  Edwards  family  and  later  purchased  from 
them,  by  Mr.  Walter  Jennings,  of  New  York  City.  It  is  seldom  that  the  medium,  marble,  lends 


i  38  } 


Aaron  Burr  Marble  Bust  by  Jacques  Jouvenal 

Capifol,  Washington,  D.  C. 


itself  to  perfect  portraiture.  It  is  too  hard,  cold  and  unworkable,  hence  Jouvenal,  the  artist, 
with  his  double  handicap,  has  only  given  us  a  bust  of  pictorial  value  to  serve  as  a  commemora- 
tive marker,  but  in  no  sense  a  genuine  portrait. 


{  39  } 


The  Bronze  Statuette 


BOUT  1922,  I  was  informed  that  a  bronze  statuette,  representing  Burr  stand- 
ing at  full  length,  was  on  sale  at  the  curio  shop  of  Miss  Jane  Teller,  421  East 
61st  Street,  New  York  City.  When  I  reached  there  it  had  been  sold  some  time 
before  and  the  buyer  was  unknown.  It  was  represented  as  a  few  inches  high 
and  may  have  conformed  to  others  similar  in  size  and  shape  of  Burr's  con- 
temporaries. Of  its  origin  and  history  nothing  could  be  ascertained.  It  must  be  a  rarity  for  I 
have  heard  of  none  other. 


{  40  > 


Burr's  Watches 


HE  earliest  known  likeness  of  Theodosia  Burr  occurs  on  the  dial  of  a  medium 
size  silver  watch,  once  owned  by  her  father.  This  watch  has  the  even  greater 
interest  of  having  a  companion  portrait  of  her  mother,  Theodosia  Bartow,  the 
widow  of  James  Marc  Prevost  and  wife  of  Col.  Burr,  which  is,  so  far  as  I  know, 
the  only  likeness  extant  of  Burr's  first  wife,  also  painted  upon  the  dial.  The 
mother  and  the  daughter  are  represented  in  profile,  facing  each  other,  the  former  at  waist 
length,  the  latter  at  knee  length,  and  of  necessity  they  are  extremely  small  to  be  crowded  into 
such  small  compass  and  are  further  diminished  by  the  ornamental  design  which  separates 
them.  Mrs.  Burr  is  clothed  in  a  waist  remarkable  only  for  its  large  lapels  and  standing  collar. 
Her  hair  is  black,  curly  and  wiggy ;  her  eyes  dark  and  nose  straight.  More  definite  analysis  of 
it  is  impossible.  Theodosia  is  painted  with  mussy  hair,  a  sheep  face,  a  broomstick  arm  and  an 
expression  belying  any  immediate  or  future  intelligence.  The  mother  and  child  bear  a  strong 
resemblance  to  each  other.  Mrs.  Burr  was  born  in  1746,  and  was  some  ten  years  older  than  her 
husband  Col.  Burr,  whom  she  married  in  1782.  Theodosia  was  born  in  1783,  and  the  mother 
died  in  1794,  so  at  the  best  Theodosia  could  not  have  been  more  than  ten  years  old,  and  from 
her  likeness  on  the  dial  was  more  likely  seven  than  ten.  Applying  these  dates  we  may  deduce 
that  the  portraits  of  Mrs.  Burr  and  her  daughter  were  painted  about  1790,  when  the  mother 
was  about  forty-four  years  old  and  the  daughter  about  seven.  The  artist  is  unknown.  On  a 
larger  scale  he  might  have  been  more  competent;  here  he  fails  abjectly.  Col.  Burr  probably 
thought  so  too,  for  it  was  among  the  goods  left  behind  and  seized  by  the  Bowrowsons.  In  the 
chapter  on  that  family  the  manner  of  their  succession  to  Col.  Burr's  effects  is  disclosed. 

This  watch  became  the  property  of  Anthony  Bowrowson's  daughter,  Theodosia,  who 
married  Mr.  Shelburg.  Their  daughter,  Harriet  A.  Shelburg,  became  the  wife  of  David  Hill, 
of  Hazlet,  New  Jersey,  a  widower  with  four  children,  one  of  whom,  E.  D.  Hill,  Esq.,  of  Atlan- 
tic Avenue,  Key  port,  New  Jersey,  received  this  watch  from  his  stepmother,  Harriet  A.  Shel- 
burg Hill,  and  had  it  in  his  possession  when  I  saw  it,  July  14,  1923.  Mr.  Hill  is  a  man  in  his 
sixties.  He  states  he  has  refused  an  offer  of  five  hundred  dollars  for  the  watch.  In  1882,  in  mid- 
summer, I  called  upon  Harriet  A.  Shelburg  Hill,  at  Hazlet,  but  the  visit  was  unproductive  as 
I  then  knew  little  of  the  Bowrowson  history  and  she  apparently  knew  less,  or  at  least  was 
uncommunicative. 

Perhaps  there  will  be  no  better  place  than  here  to  mention  the  other  watches  Burr  pos- 
sessed. For  many  years  such  articles  had  been  pet  jewels  and  playthings  of  the  aristocrats. 
Hundreds  of  them  of  exquisite  shape,  decoration  and  value  have  been  transmitted  and  exist 
today  in  collections  possessed  by  private  individuals  and  public  institutions.  Owning  them 
then  was  as  much  of  a  fad  as  collecting  them  now.  Col.  Burr  succumbed  to  the  prevailing 
fashion.  His  diary  teems  with  allusions  to  his  watches:  silver  repeater,  diamond  watch,  enam- 
elled watch,  picture  watch,  ring  watch  and  others.  The  picture  watch  carried  in  miniature  the 


{  41  } 


portrait  of  Theodosia,  painted  by  Vanderlyn  in  1802,  and  it  may  correspond  to  his  enamelled 
watch.  Burr  even  had  in  mind  to  have  his  own  portrait  enamelled  upon  a  watch  case  which 
was  to  replace  his  lost  l'Epine.  To  quote  from  his  diary: 

July  8,  1811.  "To  Bonnetts,  from  whom  I  had  a  note  this  morning  telling  me  he  was  sick. 
We  had  a  consultation  about  your  watch  which  I  perceive  will  ruin  me  and  to  enhance  the 
evil  got  another  whim  in  my  head  which  will  add  several  louis  to  the  cost,  i.  e.  to  enamel  on 
the  other  side  the  picture  of ...  " 

July  9,  1811.  "Took  Vanderlyn  in  cabriolet  to  the  enamellers  to  consult  about  wasting 
more  money.  He  agrees  to  assist  me  to  his  utmost  in  such  laudable  disposition.  To  Badolets  to 
get  the  case  of  your  watch  .  .  .  Took  cabriole  to  the  enamellers  to  give  him  the  watch  case." 

Burr  was  soon  to  be  allowed  to  sail  for  America  and  to  accomplish  it  he  had  to  raise  funds. 
He  enters  under  date  of: 

Sept.  12,  1811.  "I  have  paid  the  Captain  480  guilders,  which  is  equal  to  about  50  louis. 
But  how  did  I  raise  this?  The  reply  contains  a  dreadful  disclosure.  I  raised  it  by  the  sale  of  all 
my  little  meubles  and  loose  property.  Among  others,  alas!  my  dear  little  Gamp's.  It  is  shock- 
ing to  relate  but  what  else  could  I  do?  The  Captain  said  it  was  impossible  to  get  out  of  town 
without  500  guilders.  He  had  tried  every  resource  and  was  in  despair.  The  money  must  be 
raised  or  the  voyage  given  up.  So,  after  turning  it  over  and  looking  at  it,  and  opening  it,  and 
putting  it  to  my  ear  like  a  baby,  and  kissing  it,  and  begging  you  a  thousand  pardons  out  loud, 
your  dear,  little  beautiful  watch  was — was  sold.  I  do  assure  you — but  you  know  how  sorry  I 
was.  If  my  clothes  had  been  saleable,  they  would  have  gone  first,  that's  sure.  But  heighho ! 
when  I  get  rich  I  will  buy  you  a  prettier  one." 

Burr  set  sail  for  Boston  on  the  American  ship  Vigilant,  but  the  very  same  day  she  was 
captured  and  sent  to  Yarmouth.  Burr  found  himself  again  in  inhospitable  England,  and  to 
live  had  to  part  with  more  of  his  belongings.  As  early  as  Jan.  28,  1812,  the  divesture  com- 
menced, for  he  states:  "The  articles  destined  for  pawn  are  your  diamond  watch  and  the  pic- 
ture watch;  and  for  sale,  my  silver  repeater,"  etc. 

Feb.  29,  1812.  "To  Joyce's,  watch  maker,  Lombard  St.,  with  whom  had  left  your  picture 
watch  to  be  regulated  and  to  get  a  key ;  half  a  guinea,"  etc. 

Mch.  1, 1812,  London.  "On  my  way  home  tried  to  pawn  the  picture-watch,  but  the  rascal 
would  only  give  £4. 

Mch.  12,  1812.  "Tried  on  my  way  home  at  several  places  to  pawn  your  picture  watch 
which  ought  to  be  worth  fifty  guineas;  but  they  would  not  give  more  than  £3,  which  refused." 

Mch.  23, 1812,  London.  "To  Joyce's  for  the  watches.  I  had  expected  with  horror,  an  enor- 
mous bill  of  three  or  four  guineas.  His  bill  is  eight  pounds  twelve  shillings !  I  choked  and  was 
petrified,  but  remonstrance  and  scolding  would  have  been  vain.  Took  the  silver  repeater,  and 
left  your  picture- watch  till  the  bill  should  be  paid,  for  I  had  only  twenty  shillings,  and  Graves 
nothing.  Much  fear  I  shall  not  be  able  to  redeem  it."  His  fears  were  realized,  for  two  days 
later,  Mch.  25,  1812,  with  permission  from  the  government  to  sail,  yet  destitute  of  passage 
money,  desperate  and  humiliated,  he  was  forced  to  borrow  £20  from  his  friend  Reeves,  and 
leave  to  Graves  for  the  £15  he  owed  him,  the  picture-watch,  which  the  good  soul  not  only 
consented  to  let  remain,  but  promised  to  redeem  .  .  .  "which  remains  in  the  hands  of  those 


{  42  > 


rascals,  the  Joyces;  hope  therefore  at  some  future  day  you  may  see  it.  Left  also  with  Graves 
the  ring-watch,"  and  other  goods  to  the  amount  of  £25,  as  security  for  his  advances. 

That  Col.  Burr,  the  son  and  the  grandson  of  distinguished  Americans,  and  himself  an 
officer  in  the  army  of  the  American  Revolution,  an  United  States  Senator,  and  a  Vice  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  should  have  been  reduced  to  such  a  humiliating  position  by  the 
machinations  of  his  political  foes,  abetted  by  his  government,  is  a  great  and  heinous  crime. 
The  shame  of  it  is  not  his  but  his  country's.  He  was  always  lavishly  generous  and  never  real- 
ized the  value  of  money,  and  repeated  sad  experiences  failed  to  enlighten  him.  "This  giving," 
he  writes,  "is  a  very  unprofitable  business  and  I  have  twenty  times  determined  to  quit  it,  yet 
am  perpetually  seduced  into  the  perpetration  thereof." 

"My  private  debts  are  subject  of  some  solicitude,  but  confidence  in  my  own  industry  and 
resources  does  not  permit  me  to  despond,  nor  even  to  doubt,"  etc.  Upon  others  he  spent  much; 
upon  himself  little,  and  as  a  political  exile,  there  was  no  way  that  he  could  make  a  living  from 
the  profession  in  which  he  had  hitherto  shone  and  in  which  he  was  yet  to  shine  again.  Oppres- 
sion then,  as  now,  seems  to  be  the  privilege  of  government.  One  marvels  how  a  supposedly 
moral  nation  can  be  guilty  of  immoral  acts.  Theft  is  none  the  less  theft  when  perpetrated  by  a 
nation,  and  it  is  not  even  competition  when  a  government  enters  into  kindred  business  with 
its  citizens;  it  then  amounts  to  confiscation.  Progress  is  irresistible,  but  it  need  not  be  mile- 
stoned  by  injustices  even  if  needed  for  the  major  good.  No  extenuation  for  the  creation  of  the 
postal  service,  the  parcels  post,  the  abolition  of  slavery,  the  prohibition  of  liquor,  the  confisca- 
tory regulation  of  railroad  rates,  and  numerous  other  rapidly  multiplying  ills  can  be  justified 
without  adequate  compensation  to  the  owners  of  the  long  ago  Pony  Post,  the  Express  Com- 
panies, the  slave  owners,  the  liquor  manufacturers  and  the  railroads;  and  this  has  never  been 
made.  You  cannot  be  moral  and  oppressive  at  the  same  time;  it  is  not  tolerable  that  one  class 
should  be  oppressed  that  another  should  be  benefitted.  Such  action,  with  steady  invasion  of 
personal,  even  constitutional,  liberty  creates  hostility  so  great  that  we  may  pause  and  give 
heed.  If  Burr  was  a  victim  of  such  conditions  in  1810,  we  are  the  greater  victims  in  1928. 


{  43  > 


Theodosia  Burr's  Portrait 


By 

Gilbert  Stuart 

HE  youthful  Theodosia  was  painted  by  Stuart  about  1794.  No  doubt  the  por- 
trait was  contemporary  in  execution  with  the  portrait  of  her  father  by  the 
same  artist,  now  owned  by  the  New  Jersey  Historical  Society,  and  which  we 
have  just  discussed.  In  the  Summer  of  1883, 1  was  told  of  its  existence  and  that 
it  was  hanging  on  the  walls  of  the  Edwards'  house  in  Stratford,  Connecticut.  I 
journeyed  there  at  once,  saw  it  in  juxtaposition  to  the  full  face  portrait  of  Col.  Burr  by  Van- 
derlyn,  now  owned  by  Mr.  Walter  Jennings,  of  New  York  City,  and  arranged,  with  their  per- 
mission, to  have  both  paintings  photographed.  The  Misses  Edwards  had  acquired  these  two 
paintings  from  their  father,  Judge  Ogden  Edwards,  who,  it  will  be  recalled,  obtained  most,  if 
not  all  of  his  Burr  portraits,  by  purchase  from  the  Bowrowsons.  Five  years  after  my  visit, 
1888,  Miss  Mary  Edwards,  the  last  of  the  sisters,  died,  and  the  paintings  were  bequeathed  to 
her  brother,  Ogden  Edwards,  who  in  turn  passed  them  on  to  his  son  and  daughter,  Pierrepont 
and  Amy  Edwards.  Miss  Amy  Edwards  survived  her  brother,  and  died  quite  recently  at  Eliz- 
abeth, New  Jersey,  as  I  am  informed  by  Mrs.  Laura  Johnson  Carmalt,  of  New  Haven,  Con- 
necticut, whose  father  was  first  cousin  to  the  Misses  Edwards.  Mrs.  Carmalt's  impression  was 
that  the  finer  of  the  two  paintings  was  that  of  Col.  Burr,  but  that  the  portrait  of  Theodosia 
was  very  pleasing,  and  represented  "a  young  girl  playing  with  roses,"  and  that  this  was  the 
portrait  that  was  stolen  from  the  house  of  Pierrepont  Edwards,  at  Elizabeth,  New  Jersey,  and 
never  recovered.  This  story  of  a  stolen  portrait  has  passed  from  mouth  to  mouth  in  the  Ed- 
wards family  and  appeared  in  print,  and  while  I  have  never  been  able  to  obtain  an  authentic 
version  of  the  theft,  it  seemingly  will  not  down.  That  a  portrait  of  Theodosia  Burr  was  stolen 
from  Ogden  P.  Edwards,  is  likely,  but  that  it  was  this  portrait  by  Gilbert  Stuart  is  impossible, 
unless  it  was  recovered  after  the  theft,  which  I  have  never  seen  stated.  Both  the  Stuart  por- 
trait of  Theodosia  and  the  full  face  portrait  of  Col.  Burr  by  Vanderlyn  were  given  by  Miss 
Amy  Edwards  to  Miss  Laura  Jay  Edwards,  of  Millbrook,  Duchess  County,  New  York,  who 
sold  them,  in  April,  1919,  Col.  Burr's  portrait  to  Mr.  Walter  Jennings,  of  New  York  City,  and 
Theodosia's  portrait  to  Miss  Annie  Burr  Jennings,  his  sister. 

In  Pidgin's  Theodosia,  the  Stuart  painting  is  quite  accurately  described  in  a  letter,  to  the 
New  York  Times,  of  June  27,  1902,  written  by  Mary  Snowden  Eastly,  of  Babylon,  New  York. 
After  stating  that  it  was  in  the  possession  of  Miss  Edwards,  she  continues:  it  represents  "a 
very  sweet  and  interesting  young  girl.  She  was  seated,  her  head  bent  slightly  forward.  Her 
hair  hung  in  curling  tresses  over  her  shoulders  and  was  cut  in  a  straight  fine  across  her  fore- 
head .  .  .  The  face  had  a  gentle,  almost  pathetic,  beauty.  An  air  of  unconscious  grace  was 
noticeable  in  the  pose."  Miss  Laura  Jay  Edwards'  history  of  the  painting  is  too  fanciful  and 


{  44  > 


Theodosia  Burr 


Miss  Annie  B.  Jennings 


Gilbert  Stuart 


inaccurate  to  reproduce  it.  Little  is  needed  to  complete  Miss  Eastly's  description  of  Stuart's 
Theodosia:  She  already  looks  dignified  enough  to  do  the  honors  of  her  father's  household, 
which  she  did  at  fourteen  years,  as  she  sits  demurely  in  a  large  arm  chair,  adjacent  to  a  table 
upon  which  rests  two  books,  dressed  all  in  white  with  much  lace  about  her  waist  and  neck.  Her 
hands  appear  in  her  lap,  and  in  the  right  one  she  holds  a  book  into  which  her  index  finger  is 
inserted,  not  holding  flowers,  as  Mrs.  Carmalt  wrote.  The  painting  is  obscurely  signed  with 
the  artist's  name,  and,  as  I  believe  it  was  painted  in  1794,  Theodosia  was  about  eleven  years 
old. 

By  a  strange  error  Mr.  Pidgin  (see  Theodosia,  pp.  430  and  434),  after  studying  the  hair  of 
St.  Memin's  pantograph  likeness  of  Theodosia,  dated  1797,  and  reading  Miss  Eastly's  de- 
scription, reaches  the  false  conclusion  that  St.  Memin  simply  copied  this  Stuart  portrait.  This 
is  impossible,  for  the  Stuart  portrait  of  Theodosia,  and  the  St.  Memin  of  1797,  are  as  unlike  as 
the  sun  and  the  moon.  Each  stands  for  an  entirely  distinct  portrayal. 

Her  father,  Colonel  Burr,  criticised  it  accurately  in  a  letter  he  wrote  to  her  Jan.  5,  1795: 
"Your  picture  is  really  like  you:  still  it  does  not  quite  please  me.  It  has  a  pensive,  sentimental 
air,  that  of  a  love-sick  maid.  Stuart  has  probably  meant  to  anticipate  what  you  may  be  at  six- 
teen, but  even  in  that  I  think  he  has  missed  it."  Charles  Felton  Pidgins  Theodosia,  The  First 
Gentlewoman  of  Her  Time,  Boston,  1907,  page  199. 

Lawrence  Park's  Gilbert  Stuart  supplies  a  further  description  of  this  painting: 

N.  Y.  1794.  Canvas  29  x  23^  inches. 

Life-size,  seated  three  quarters  right  in  an  arm  chair  upholstered  in  dark  red.  The  figure 
is  placed  to  the  left  of  the  center  of  the  canvas.  She  is  shown  as  a  young  girl  in  her  twelfth 
year,  wearing  a  simple  low-necked  white  gown,  the  neck  trimmed  with  white  lace,  and  a  white 
shawl  is  falling  from  her  shoulders,  covering  her  arms.  She  gazes  at  the  spectator  with  large, 
brown,  dreamy  eyes,  and  her  straight  brown  hair  is  brushed  forward  on  her  forehead  and  falls 
upon  her  neck.  Beside  her  at  her  left  is  a  table  covered  with  a  brownish-red  cloth  on  which 
rests  two  leather-bound  books  with  red  title  labels.  Another  book  is  held  in  her  right  hand, 
lying  on  her  lap,  with  the  index  finger  thrust  between  the  pages.  A  bit  of  a  pale  grayish-blue 
satin  sash  is  shown  at  her  waist.  The  background  is  of  a  dark  greenish  tone,  a  gray  fluted  pil- 
aster at  the  right  is  seen  rising  beyond  the  table.  The  picture  was  at  one  time  in  bad  condition, 
and  the  head  has  been  much  restored,  losing  a  good  deal  of  the  Stuart  feeling  by  the  process. 
On  the  upper  one  of  the  two  books  lying  on  the  table  is  written:  "Burr;"  directly  below  it  on 
the  lower  book  is  ".Stuart  95.  F1"  . . . 

"This  portrait  was  in  the  possession  of  Judge  Ogden  Edwards,  and  is  in  all  probability 
the  one  which  he  found,  together  with  the  Stuart  portrait  of  Aaron  Burr,  in  the  house  of  a 
colored  woman  in  the  "Short  Hills  of  New  Jersey."  From  his  family  it  came  to  Miss  Amy 
Edwards,  of  Elizabeth,  New  Jersey,  who  bequeathed  it  to  Miss  Laura  Jay  Edwards,  of  Mill- 
brook,  New  York,  from  whom  it  was  bought  in  April,  1919,  by  Miss  Annie  Burr  Jennings, 
New  York  City,  the  present  owner.  When  Miss  Jennings  acquired  it,  the  portrait  was  attri- 
buted to  Vanderlyn,  but  when  it  was  cleaned  the  rather  bright  colors  disappeared  and  the 
original  softened  Stuart  came  out." 

"Reproduced  in  half  tone  (from  a  photograph  taken  before  the  picture  was  restored  to 


{  45  } 


its  present  state),  in 1  Aaron  Burr,'  by  Samuel  H.  Wandell  and  Meade  Minnigerode,  1925,  Vol. 
1,  facing  page  128.  Not  listed  in  Mason.  Illustrated." 

Park's  statement  is  correct  except  that  the  one  time  owner  of  the  painting  residing  at 
Short  Hills  was  a  white  woman,  not  a  colored  woman. 


{  46  } 


Theodosia  Burr  1796 

St.  Memin 


John  Vanderlyn 


The  1796  Vanderlyn  Portrait 

Of 

Theodosia  Burr 


mm 


mm 


mm. 


ANDERLYN'S  next  effort  was  to  paint  Theodosia  Burr,*  in  1796,  when  she 
had  reached  the  age  of  thirteen  years.  Stuart  had  already  done  so  and  had  pro- 
duced a  fine  work  of  great  charm.  For  so  young  an  artist  as  the  twenty  year  old 
Vanderlyn  to  attempt  it  was  hazardous;  he  was  as  like  to  be  commended  for  his 
courage  as  to  be  condemned  for  his  temerity.  He  was  clever  enough  to  realize 
this  and  did  not  attempt  to  fly  too  high.  In  consequence  he  made  no  pretentious  effort;  he 
simply  painted  his  subject  in  profile,  standing,  at  half-length,  and  you  feel  that  she  is  a  sweet, 
immature  girl,  nothing  more.  She  is  probably  still  in  short  skirts,  her  features  are  somewhat 
sharp  and  her  hair  flows  loosely  down  her  back  and  shoulders.  Though  crudely  painted,  the 
picture  is  attractive  because  of  its  simplicity.  Even  in  size  it  is  modest,  for  it  is  a  small  cabinet 
painting.  Her  father  doubtless  admired  it,  with  its  forecast  of  her  future  physical  beauty,  and 
perhaps  at  his  request,  but  just  as  likely  by  St.  Memin's  own  desire,  it  was  reproduced  in  1797, 
by  that  artist's  peculiarly  exact  method  as  an  engraving.  I  saw  this  little  painting  first  about 
thirty-five  or  forty  years  ago  when  it  was  in  the  possession  of  the  Edwards  family,  then  resid- 
ing in  West  47th  Street  just  off  of  Fifth  Avenue.  Today  it  is  owned  by  Miss  Laura  Jay  Ed- 
wards, of  Millbrook,  Duchess  County,  N.  Y.,  who  acquired  it  from  her  father  Jonathan  Ed- 
wards, the  son  of  Ogden  Edwards  who  no  doubt  obtained  it  in  his  general  rescue  of  the  Burr 
portraits  from  the  Bowrowsons.  That  it  came  from  them  I  have  no  doubt,  for  Col.  Burr  had 
another  Vanderlyn  portrait  of  Theodosia  much  more  precious  to  him;  one  which  was  his  con- 
stant companion  at  home  and  abroad,  and  which  abided  with  him  until  his  death.  Naturally 
he  would  have  neither  desire  nor  means  to  carry  more  than  this  one  and  all  others  were  ap- 
propriated by  the  Bowrowsons. 

Vanderlyn's  artistic  development  was  rapid.  At  twenty-six  he  did  work  of  such  excellence 
that  today  it  passes  for  Stuart's.  Their  palette  and  technic  were  frequently  identical  and  both 
painted  so  thinly  that  at  times  the  grain  of  the  canvas  produced  the  shadows  and  half  tones. 
His  European  study  was  soon  to  lend  grace  and  distinction  to  his  compositions. 

♦Pidgin's  Theodosia,  p.  430,  erroneously  claims  that  this  portrait  was  probably  the  work  of  Gilbert  Stuart  and  simply  copied 
by  St.  Memin.  It  is  beyond  dubiety  the  work  of  Vanderlyn.  It  correctly  appears  as  the  work  of  Vanderlyn  in  certain  magazine 
articles,  the  Burr  Genealogy,  etc. 


<  47  > 


Vanderlyn's  Kingston  Portrait 

Of 

Theodosia  Burr 


OR  want  of  more  definite  information  I  am  compelled  to  designate  this  portrait 
of  Theodosia,  the  Kingston  Portrait.  Many  years  ago  a  very  unsatisfactory 
small  photograph  of  a  painting,  with  badly  broken  edges,  even  to  a  substantial 
loss  at  the  corners,  was  sent  to  me  from  that  city.  The  picture  was  unframed 
and  the  canvas,  or  material  upon  which  it  was  painted,  was  glued  to  a  board. 
It  represented  Theodosia  at  perhaps  fourteen  years  of  age,  painted  a  little  more  than  waist 
length,  unfinished  arm  and  hand,  body  two-thirds  displayed,  face  in  profile,  small  sharp  nose, 
and  generally  undeveloped  features  which  were,  however,  unmistakably  hers.  Her  hair  fell  in 
two  well  defined  locks,  a  short  one  in  front  of  her  right  ear,  a  long  one  forward  on  her  shoulder. 
She  was  clothed  in  a  white  dress  opened  at  the  neck.  It  was  apparently  a  sketch.  Its  origin  and 
owner  could  not  be  ascertained,  and  even  the  photographer  was  unindicated  upon  the  photo- 
graph. 

In  1923,  I  made  a  determined  effort  to  locate  this  painting.  By  proxy  I  visited  every 
photographer  and  citizen  likely  to  possess  information  in  Kingston,  and  failing  to  obtain  it, 
inserted  Oct.  13, 1923,  the  following  query,  in  the  Kingston,  New  York,  Daily  Leader: 

WANTED — Information  concerning  a  portrait  of  Theodosia,  daughter  of  Aaron  Burr, 
at  about  the  age  of  12  to  14  years,  which  was  photographed  between  1880  and  1890.  The  por- 
trait was  then  unframed  and  partially  lost  at  its  lower  margins  and  was  apparently  nailed  to  a 
board.  Please  reply  to  John  E.  Stillwell,  9  West  49th  St.,  New  York  City. 

No  success  followed  until  May,  1928,  when  I  was  told  of  the  existence  of  a  portrait  of 
Theodosia,  in  the  Museum  of  the  Senate  House,  Kingston.  Investigation  proved  it  to  be  the 
so  called  Vanderlyn  Kingston  Portrait.  On  the  back  of  it  was:  Theodosia  Burr  presented  by 
Maria  Gosman.  Painted  May  2,  1792.  The  size  of  the  panel  is  4%  inches  by  6j/£  inches.  It  is 
rapidly  disintergrating.  The  accuracy  of  the  date,  May  2,  1792,  I  am  inclined  to  question. 
Theodosia  Burr  was  born  in  June,  1783,  which  would  make  her,  in  May,  1792,  less  than  nine 
years  of  age  and  Vanderlyn,  born  in  October,  1776,  less  than  sixteen.  Probably  May  2,  1792, 
is  a  misreading  or  a  late  inscription  from  memory.  I  would  suggest  that  the  work  was  done 
about  1796,  and  was  an  unused  sketch  for  the  painting  of  Theodosia  Burr  which  he  created  at 
this  date. 


{  48  } 


Theodosia  Burr  John  Vanderlyn 

Senate  House,  Kingston,  N.  Y. 


The  1796  Portrait  of  Theodosia  Burr 

By 

St.  Memin 


mm 


HILE  St.  Memin's  engraving  and  Vanderlyn's  profile  portrait  of  Theodosia 
Burr  were  apparently  both  executed  in  the  year  1796,  she  certainly  looks  much 
older,  at  the  hands  of  the  engraver,  than  she  does  at  the  hands  of  the  painter. 
Roughly  calculated  she  was  thirteen  when  they  were  made,  but  the  extremes 
of  the  year,  if  taken,  would  allow  an  additional  year ;  and  as  we  have  elsewhere 
stated,  she  was  at  fourteen  so  precocious  that  she  was  the  mistress  of  her  father's  household. 
We  will  concede  that  she  looks  well  developed  for  her  years,  but  allowance  must  be  made  for 
the  viewpoint  of  two  different  men  and  two  different  methods  or  mediums  of  expression,  the 
burin  and  the  brush.  St.  Memin  depicts  her  with  small,  aristocratic  features,  a  resolute  mouth 
and  profuse  hair  falling,  unrestrained,  down  her  back.  She  has  not  yet  reached  the  age  of  ex- 
travagant dress,  but  wears  a  pleated  linen  waist  edged,  at  the  neck  and  shoulders,  with  a 
heavy  ruffle. 

Oct.  16,  1915,  Charles  Burr  Todd,  writing  to  me  from  Washington's  Crossing,  New  Jer- 
sey, states  that  he  had  heard  of  a  steel  engraving  of  Theodosia  Burr  Alston,  in  South  Carolina. 
Nov.  27,  1919,  he  wrote  from  Coronado,  Florida:  "Its  the  small  copper  plate  in  profile,  in  a 
circle,  in  solid  gilt  frame.  It  was  made  in  1809  [  ?  ]  for  Natalie  Sumter,  the  little  French  emigre 
who  Col.  Burr  took  into  his  family  to  be  a  companion  to  Theodosia,  and  it  is  now  owned  by 
the  four  grand  daughters  of  Natalie.  You  may  remember  the  latter  married  Gen.  Sumter,  of 
Revolutionary  fame.  Of  these  four  grandchildren  only  one  is  married  and  she  has  no  children. 
They  regard  it  as  an  heirloom  and  could  only  be  induced  to  sell  it  by  the  offer  of  a  consider- 
able sum  of  money,  as  a  favor,  and  because  it  would  go  into  and  remain  in  Theodosia's  family" 
.  .  .  "Would  you  give  $1,500.  for  it?"  ...  "I  can  secure  the  two  portraits  of  Theodosia  in  St. 
Memin's  own  collection  for  $2,500.  each.  Do  you  want  them?  You  remember  St.  Memin  made 
two  impressions,  one  he  gave  to  the  sitter  and  kept  the  other  himself,  then  destroyed  the  plate. 
He  took  his  collection  to  France,  but  it  was  later  bought  by  an  American  collector  and  brought 
back  home;  281  portraits,  originals,  2  of  them  being  of  Theodosia.  I  can  buy  the  whole  collec- 
tion for  $30,000.,  and  they  offered  me  the  two  of  Theodosia  for  $2,500.  each.  They  want  a  big 
sum  to  reimburse  them  for  breaking  the  collection."  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  call  attention  to 
the  many  errors  in  Mr.  Todd's  statement,  nor  to  the  well-known  fact  that  St.  Memin  engrav- 
ings, perhaps  of  less  distinguished  persons  than  the  Burrs,  have  sold  at  public  auction  from 
two  to  seven  dollars  apiece. 

Mr.  Pidgin  falls  into  error  when  he  says  that  Colonel  Burr  in  no  way  referred  to  the  St. 
Memin  engraving,  "which  is  apparently  an  idealization  of  the  Stuart  portrait,"  and  certainly 
the  handsome  young  woman  was  not  a  child  of  thirteen.  Burr  may  not  have  referred  to  this 


{  49  } 


engraving  of  Theodosia  but  it  was  none  the  less  an  original  work  of  St.  Memin.  Further  allu- 
sion to  it  may  be  found  under  Stuart's  portrait  of  Theodosia.  Theodosia.  By  Pidgin,  pp.  430, 
433. 

St.  Memin's  engraving  of  Theodosia  Burr,  1796,  appears  as  a  frontispiece  to  Pidgin's 
Theodosia;  in  Ida  M.  Tarbell's  Trial  Of  Aaron  Burr;  in  Charles  Kassan  Wead's  magazine 
article  on  St.  Memin  Portraits,  etc.,  etc. 


{  50  } 


Theodosia  Burr 


1796 


St.  Memin 


The  1802  Vanderlyn  Portrait 

Of 

Theodosia  Burr  Alston 

HE  most  beautiful  of  all  the  portraits  of  Theodosia  is  that  by  Vanderlyn, 
painted  in  1802.  April  5th,  of  that  year,  Col.  Burr  wrote  to  his  daughter  that 
he  was  coming  South.  An  event  was  shortly  expected.  When  he  arrived  at 
Clifton,  a  day's  journey  from  Charleston,  where  Theodosia  was,  he  wrote  her, 
April  30,  1802,  of  his  detention  because  of  a  full  stage — -"not  even  a  seat  for 
the  Vice-president,"  and  that  "William  arrived  here  this  afternoon  and  tells  us  you  are  well, 
and  your  husband  ill.  This  is  exactly  wrong,  unless  he  means  to  take  the  whole  trouble  off  your 
hands,  as  some  good  husbands  have  heretofore  done;  so  at  least  Darwin  records.  God  bless 
thee,  my  dear  Theodosia."  The  boy,  the  cause  of  so  much  of  her  future  sorrow,  arrived  May 
22,  1802.  Her  recovery  was  expeditious,  and  she  sailed,  with  her  father  to  New  York,  where 
they  arrived  June  23,  1802.  It  will  be  recalled  that  Theodosia  was  born  at  Albany,  June  21, 
1783,  was  married  Feb.  2,  1801,  and  was  now  the  mother  of  a  promising  boy  a  few  months 
old.  Vanderlyn  had  apparently  declined  Burr's  request,  (mentioned  in  his  letter  of  April  5th 
to  Theodosia),  "to  ship  himself  for  the  port  of  Charleston  on  the  first  of  May."  The  artist 
realized  the  moment  was  inopportune,  but  now  the  time  was  ripe  and  he  availed  himself  of  it. 
Mrs.  Alston  sailed  for  the  South,  Nov.  24,  1802,  which  she  reached  after  a  five  month's  ab- 
sence and  a  ten  day  passage.  It  was  during  these  five  months,  in  the  Summer  and  early  Fall  of 
1802,  (during  a  portion  of  which  time  she  was  ill),  that  this  portrait  was  painted.  Dec.  4, 1802, 
Burr  wrote:  "Vanderlyn  has  finished  your  picture  in  the  most  beautiful  style  imaginable. 
When  it  was  done,  he  exclaimed  with  enthusiasm:  'There  is  the  best  work  I  have  ever  done  in 
America.'  "  On  Dec.  16th,  following,  he  writes  again  to  his  daughter:  "Vanderlyn  projects  to 
visit  Charleston,  but  I  am  sure  he  will  not.  He  is  run  down  with  applications  for  portraits,  all 
of  which,  without  discrimination,  he  refuses.  He  is  greatly  occupied  in  finishing  his  Niagara 
views,  which  indeed,  will  do  him  honor.  They  will  be  four  in  number,  and  he  thinks  of  having 
them  engraved  in  France.  You  hear  the  roaring  of  the  cataract  when  you  look  at  them." 

This  Vanderlyn  portrait  of  Theodosia,  painted  in  1802,  is  as  simple  as  it  is  graceful  and 
elegant.  Fresh  from  the  study  of  classic  art,  the  artist  portrays  her  Grecian  features  in  profile, 
producing  a  cameo-like  relief  in  a  painting  which  has  always  been  foremost  in  popularity  in 
19th  century  American  art.  This  statuesque  treatment  had  largely  its  revival  in  the  Napole- 
onic era  and  its  strongest  exponents  were  David  and  his  followers.  The  finely  poised  head,  the 
straight  nose,  the  short  upper  lip,  the  closely  drawn  hair  and  lineless  face  of  Theodosia  all  lent 
themselves  to  producing  this  effect,  which  was  still  furthered  by  a  veil  flowing  from  her  head 
down  around  both  of  her  shoulders,  and  a  simple  white  dress  destitute  of  all  ornament,  cut  V 
shape  at  the  neck  and  belted  high  at  the  waist.  Perhaps  for  perfect  symmetry  her  jowls,  neck 


i  51  } 


and  ear  are  too  heavy  and  the  head  is  too  much  strained  by  the  forced  rotation  of  her  neck 
upon  the  body,  which  is  placed  nearly  full,  facing  the  spectator.  It  is  painted  upon  canvas  at 
near  half  length,  upon  a  plain  background.  Theodosia  appears  in  it  the  perfection  of  youthful 
feminine  development,  radiant  with  its  health  and  happiness.  It  was  Burr's  inseparable  com- 
panion at  home  and  abroad  and  he  displayed  it  where  and  whenever  opportunity  offered.  There 
was  no  surer  passport  to  his  affections  than  to  admire  it,  which  was  generously  done.  Once, 
when  in  need  of  slight  repairs,  he  took  it  to  Carl  Frederik  von  Breda,  the  Swedish  Court 
painter,  the  pupil  of  Reynolds  and  the  Vandyck  of  his  own  country,  who  exclaimed  "Good 
God  pardon  the  freedom;  but  can  any  man  on  earth  be  worthy  of  that  woman?  I  know  how  to 
estimate  her.  Such  a  union  of  delicacy,  dignity,  sweetness  and  genius  I  never  saw.  Is  she 
happy?  He  almost  shed  tears." 

Breda's  analysis  was  about  correct.  The  reigning  Duke  of  Weimar,  who  Burr  claimed 
knew  art,  "Found  a  great  deal  of  fault  with  the  painter.  In  the  original,  he  said,  there  must  be 
dignity,  majesty,  genius,  gentleness,  sensibility  all  discernable  in  the  picture,  but  imperfectly 
expressed."  It  looks  as  if  the  Duke  possessed  double  vision  to  see  so  much.  Burr  believed  it  all 
and  himself  wrote:  "amid  a  galaxy  of  Swedish  beauty,  and  I  have  nowhere  seen  a  greater  pro- 
portion than  at  Stockholm,  it  was  distinguished  and  did  honour  to  the  subject,  to  the  artist 
and  to  me."  When  the  painting  only  provoked  commonplace  admiration  he  was  peeved  and 
out  of  humor.  Its  preservation  was  a  constant  cause  of  anxiety,  and  it  was  rolled,  encased, 
varnished  or  restored  unceasingly.  He  carried  it  on  his  lap  during  travel,  and  hung  it  in  his 
room  where  he  could  address  it.  How  deep  was  the  love  and  how  prophetic  his  forebodings 
when  he  wrote:  "I  bid  you  bon  soir  a  dozen  times  before  I  shut  you  up  in  that  dark  case.  I  can 
never  do  it  without  regret.  It  seems  as  if  I  were  burying  you  alive."  And  his  love  was  returned 
a  thousand  fold,  for  she  wrote:  "I  contemplate  you  with  such  a  strange  admixture  of  humility, 
admiration,  reverence,  love  and  pride  that  very  little  superstition  would  be  necessary  to  make 
me  worship  you  as  a  superior  being;  such  enthusiasm  does  your  character  excite  in  me.  When 
I  afterward  revert  to  myself,  how  insignificant  do  my  best  qualities  appear.  My  vanity  would 
be  greater  if  I  had  not  been  placed  so  near  you;  and  yet  my  pride  is  our  relationship.  I  had 
rather  not  live  than  not  be  the  daughter  of  such  a  man." 

Such  stupendous  homage  has  never  been  paid  before  nor  since  to  any  human  being! 

The  man  who  could  write  in  his  private  diary  "I  suffer  and  freeze"  yet  smile  to  the  world 
and  blind  his  daughter  with  the  cheer  of  his  letters;  the  man  who  could  silently  ignore  affronts 
and  not  justify  his  actions;  the  man  upon  whom  fell  a  blow  so  great  that  he  wrote  in  his  agony 
"I  am  severed  from  the  human  race"  yet  who  uncomplainingly  resumed  the  tasks  of  life,  was 
no  common  mortal.  Even  his  enemies  should  concede  him  fortitude,  self  respect  and  deep 
paternal  love. 

I  have  never  been  able  to  locate  the  original  portrait  of  Theodosia  Burr  Alston  painted 
by  Vanderlyn  in  1802,  but  it  was  frequently  engraved  in  the  middle  of  the  19th  century,  and 
I  suspect  that  it  still  exists  in  some  branch  of  the  Bowrowson  family.  The  copies  that  Burr  so 
frequently  ordered  between  1810  and  1815  from  Vanderlyn  of  this  1802  painting  were  cut  offs 
at  bust  length  of  the  original.  They  were  created  for  ease  of  transportation  but  in  this  case 
utility  materially  sacrificed  the  beauty  and  compositional  value  of  the  original  painting.  Of 


i  52  > 


Theodosia  Burr  Alston  1802  John  Vaaderlyn 

Mrs.  T.  D.  Waters 


these  replicas  I  can  now  locate  two,  though  I  know  there  were  more.  One  is  in  the  possession 
of  Mrs.  Robert  H.  Horsey  (nee  Florence  Middleton),  of  19  Hillside  Avenue,  Summit,  New 
Jersey,  while  the  other  is  in  the  possession  of  Mrs.  T.  D.  Waters  (nee  Frances  Breckenridge), 
of  1523  31st  Street,  W.,  Washington,  D.  C.  There  is  much  sentiment  attached  to  the  former 
for  it  was  the  painting  Burr  carried  with  him  in  his  hurried  departure  to  Europe,  and  it  abided 
with  him  until  the  time  of  his  death.  I  had  the  pleasure  of  first  seeing  this  painting  in  1882, 
and  since  then  have  made  many  ineffectual  attempts  to  purchase  it.  It  is  in  poor  physical  con- 
dition; the  paint  has  flaked  from  the  canvas  in  transverse  lines  from  being  frequently  rolled. 
It  is  doubtless  this  painting  that  is  erroneously  referred  to  in  Pidgin's  Theodosia,  pp.  427,  428, 
as  a  Gilbert  Stuart,  and  pronounced  by  its  owners  in  a  frail  condition.  If  the  instructions  in 
Burr's  will  were  carried  out  this  painting  passed  to  his  kinswoman,  Miss  Theodosia  Prevost, 
and  this  I  believe  was  the  case. 

The  kinswoman  that  Burr  called  Theodosia  Prevost  was  a  spinster  and  the  daughter  of 
Hon.  John  Bartow  Prevost,  Burr's  stepson ;  hence  Theodosia  Prevost  was  practically  a  step 
granddaughter  to  Col.  Burr.  She  died  in  1865,  leaving  a  will  in  which  she  called  herself  of  New 
Bridge  (Barbadoes),  now  known  as  Englewood,  N.  J.,  and  gave  to  her  friend,  Helen  Hughes, 
her  silver,  pictures,  and  personal  effects,  and  to  her  brother  Stanhope  Prevost,  of  Lima,  Peru, 
her  real  estate.  James  N.  Piatt,  of  New  York,  was  her  executor.  From  him,  in  August,  1882,  I 
ascertained  that  Miss  Hughes  was  Miss  Prevost's  companion,  residing  with  her  for  many 
years.  That  she  was  aged  and  died,  probably,  without  close  heirs.  The  cup  with  Theodosia's 
portrait  was  sent  to  Lima,  "but  the  Breckenbridges,  of  Allton,  now  have  it." 

In  reply  to  a  letter  addressed  to  them,  I  received  the  following : 

Allton,  Oct.  5,  1883. 

DrJohnE.StiUweU 
Dear  Sir: — 

Your  courteous  letter  of  Sept.  29th  received  day  before  yesterday.  It  affords  me  great 
pleasure  to  tell  you  all  I  know  about  my  picture  of  Theodosia  Burr  Allston.  It  is  done  on 
Sevres  china — a  small  medallion  mounted  on  copper,  about  2%  inches  long  and  2  inches  wide. 
It  was  given  to  my  late  husband,  Dr  M.  P.  Breckenridge,  by  his  mother  who  was  a  daughter 
of  John  B.  Prevost.  Miss  Theodosia  Prevost  was  the  only  sister  of  my  mother-in-law  and  may 
have  owned  the  picture  for  some  time,  but  I  do  not  know  that  she  did.  I  once  had  a  large  copy 
of  the  original  portrait  by  Vanderlyn,  which  Col.  Burr  always  carried  with  him  and  supposed 
it  would  be  given  to  my  daughter  Theodosia  P.  Breckenridge,  but  it  was  bequeathed  to  the 
branch  of  the  Prevost  family  in  Lima,  Peru.  The  Prevosts  in  Lima  also  have  a  Sevres  cup  with 
a  medallion  on  it  like  mine,  and  a  saucer  with  initials,  but  both  were  badly  broken  and  injured 
in  being  transported  to  South  America.  The  life  long  friend  and  companion  of  Miss  Theodosia 
Prevost,  Miss  Hughes,  told  me  that  the  portrait  of  Theodosia  which  Col.  Burr  always  carried 
with  him  had  been  left  by  him  to  an  illegitimate  daughter  and  afterwards  sold  for  debt,  and 
was  in  the  possession  of  so  wicked  a  man  in  Brooklyn  or  New  York,  that  I  had  better  not  try 
to  find  out  what  was  likely  to  be  its  fate.  She  told  me  about  it  in  1871,  a  year  or  so  before  her 
death.  Hoping  to  have  contributed  to  helping  you  in  your  researches 

I  remain,    Yours  truly 

Lucy  L.  Breckenridge. 

<  53  > 


Hip  Burr  says  that  when  Colonel  Burr  left  his  father's  house  he  took  with  him  the  rolled 
portrait  of  Theodosia,  which  no  doubt  is  correct,  for  he  naturally  would  not  part  with  it. 
Hence  it  is  likely  this  identical  painting  passed  to  Miss  Prevost  and  then  to  Burr's  daughter 
Frances.  Mrs.  Breckenridge's  letter  tells  how  it  left  them.  Now  the  query  is  how  did  this  rolled 
Vanderlyn  come  to  the  Columbus  Burr  family.  This  is  answered  by  them:  Aaron  Columbus 
Burr  had  his  attention  drawn  to  a  portrait  of  Theodosia  in  the  possession  of  one,  Rodgers, 
owner  of  a  pawn,  jewelry  or  curiosity  shop,  in  Chatham  Street.  He  bought  it,  paying  possibly 
$50.  for  it. 

The  second  known  replica  to  which  we  have  alluded  as  owned  by  Mrs.  Waters,  of  Wash- 
ington, D.  C,  likewise  passed  through  the  hands  of  Miss  Theodosia  Prevost.  It  was  probably 
given  directly  to  her  by  Colonel  Burr,  during  his  lifetime.  Upon  her  death  it  passed  to  her 
brother  Stanhope  Prevost,  of  Lima,  Peru,  and  following  his  demise  it  was  successively  owned 
by  his  sons  Henry  and  Charles,  and  by  the  latter  passed  directly  to  Frances  Breckenridge 
Waters,  a  daughter  of  Lewis  Breckenridge,  whose  mother  was  a  daughter  of  John  Bartow 
Prevost,  the  step-son  of  Colonel  Burr  and  half-brother  of  Theodosia  Burr  Alston.  The  paint- 
ing is  very  beautiful  and  in  a  fine  state  of  preservation  and  does  credit  to  Vanderlyn.  Theo- 
dosia is  described  as  wearing  a  white  dress  and  a  pale  blue  sash  and  scarf.  Through  the  kind- 
ness of  Mrs.  Waters  I  am  able  to  reproduce  it. 

How  many  replicas  were  made  of  the  1802  portrait  of  Theodosia  Burr  is  unknown  and  it 
would  be  idle  to  speculate  thereon.  The  work  of  copying  it  never  ceased  for  years. 

July  7,  1814,  Burr  addressed  a  letter  to  Monsieur  Jean  Van  Der  Lyn  a  Paris,  in  which, 
among  other  things,  he  said:  "I  am  sorely  afraid  my  dear  John  that  you  have  neglected  to 
make  a  copy  of  that  portrait  which  I  left  with  so  much  hesitation  and  regret— I  fear  because 
you  have  not  mentioned  it  in  any  of  your  letters,  which  I  think  you  would  have  done  if  your 
engagement  had  been  performed.  Should  my  apprehension  be  just,  I  pray  you  to  set  about  the 
work  forthwith  and  that  you  will  send  both  original  &  copy  by  Dr.  B  [Bollman]  in  case  you 
should  not  come  out  with  him  ..." 

New  York,  July  28,  1815,  again  Burr  wrote  to  Vanderlyn  at  Paris:  "...  I  am  weary  of 
hearing  that  you  are  coming  &  shall  not  believe  it  untill  you  do  actually  come  .  . .  Pay  Captain 
Skinner  half  your  passage  &  I  will  pay  the  rest  on  your  arrival.  If  you  should  not  come,  send 
by  Skinner  the  copy  you  have  made  of  Theodosia's  picture — I  would  not  trust  the  original  and 
copy  by  the  same  ship  unless  you  should  come  yourself." 

From  the  ambiguity  of  Burr's  entries  in  his  diary,  between  Dec.  15,  1810,  and  July  17, 
1811,  one  might  think  it  possible  that  another  copy  of  Vanderlyn's  1802  painting  remained  in 
Paris,  and  became  the  property  of  Madame  Fenwick,  but  a  perusal  of  Governor  Alston's  let- 
ter, reproduced  under  the  1811  portrait  of  Theodosia,  would  correct  this  impression.  Burr  also 
had  the  1802  portrait  enamelled  in  miniature  for  a  watch  cover.  The  following  entries  bear 
upon  both  the  portrait  and  the  watch ;  then  strangely  omit  all  reference  to  similar  enamelled 
medallions  applied  to  china  cups  which  passed,  and  still  belong,  to  the  Breckenridges,  one  of 
which  was  mentioned  in  Burr's  will,  and  to  another  medallion  mentioned  by  Governor  Alston 
in  his  letter  of  Feb.  16,1816. 


i  54  } 


February,  1810,  Burr  reproaches  Vanderlyn  as  lazy  and  irritable,  and  states  that  after 
five  months  a  promised  copy  of  this  portrait  was  not  started.  Mch.  1,  1810,  he  left  with  Van- 
derlyn Theodosia's  painting  "to  be  put  in  the  hands  of  an  engraver,"  i.  e.  probably  an  en- 
ameller.  Apr.  22,  1810.  Evidently  Vanderlyn  had  commenced  to  copy  his  1802  portrait  of 
Theodosia,  for  Burr  notes  "Your  picture  goes  on  slowly."  Sept.  28,  1810.  "Vanderlyn  has  be- 
come a  little  lazy.  He  promised  me  a  copy  of  your  picture  which  has  been  in  his  hands  for  the 
purpose  now  five  months.  For  the  last  four  he  has  not  touched  it." 

Paris,  Dec.  15,  1810.  "To  Vanderlyn's  to  get  him  to  send  your  picture  to  Madame  Fen- 
wicks. 

Dec.  16,  1810.  "Vanderlyn  has  not  sent  the  picture  to  Fenwick.  The  lazy  dog;  but  he  is 
about  to  model  your  head  en  platre,  which  if  he  does  shall  forgive  him  many  sins." 

Dec.  17,  1810.  "To  Madame  Fenwicks.  Your  picture  was  there  and  you  were  the  princi- 
pal topic.  She  thinks  it  worth  a  voyage  to  America  to  see  you,  and  I  told  her  I  had  written  you 
that  it  was  worth  a  voyage  to  France  to  see  her." 

Jan.  15, 1811.  The  replica  was  still  in  Vanderlyn's  possession,  for  Burr  enters  in  his  diary 
" — called  on  Hahn  having  engaged  to  walk  with  him  to  Vanderlyn's  at  this  hour.  Put  off  that 
walk.  Madame  the  business  is  to  show  him  your  portrait  and  to  know  for  how  much  I  can 
have  it  enamelled  on  a  watch.  Also  that  of  Gamp  to  enamel  on  another  watch,  to  replace  the 
lostl'Epine." 

Jan.  20,  1811.  "At  half  past  nine  to  Hahn's  whom  I  took  with  me  to  Vanderlyn's  to  look 
at  your  picture,  and  estimate  the  expense  of  an  enamelled  copy  in  minature  to  be  put  on  a 
watch  which  I  design  for  Gamp,  so  soon  as  I  get  possession  of  my  fortune." 

Paris,  June  22, 1822. ...  to  Vanderlyn's;  he  has  neglected  your  enamelled  watch,  and  the 
picture  is  not  yet  finished  by  the  enameller. 

June  25,  1811.  Walked  to  Vanderlyn's  who  was  busy  with  his  beautiful  model  who  con- 
sented that  I  should  assist  and  in  I  came.  At  three  took  Vanderlyn  to  the  enameller's.  He  will 
make  a  horrid  thing  and  I  fear  you  will  be  little  pleased,  except  with  my  endeavours  to  please 
you. 

July  17,  1811.  "took  him  [Vanderlyn]  with  me  to  the  enamellers  to  see  your  watch.  The 
copy  of  Fenwick's  picture  is  nearly  done.  Am  to  have  it  Monday  morning." 

Further  allusions  to  this  enamelled  watch,  as  well  as  others,  are  carried  on  in  the  chapter 
on  Burr's  Watches. 

The  1802  portrait  of  Theodosia  by  Vanderlyn  was  first  engraved  as  a  frontispiece  for 
Matthew  L.  Davis'  second  volume  of  the  Memoirs  of  Aaron  Burr,  issued  in  1837,  by  G.  Parker, 
and  again,  in  1858,  by  H.  Wright  Smith  for  J.  Parton's  Life  and  Times  Of  Aaron  Burr.  And 
it  has  been  in  common  usage  ever  since. 


i  55  } 


The  1811  Vanderlyn  Portrait 

Of 

Theodosia  Burr  Alston 

HERE  is  a  portrait  of  Theodosia,  in  my  possession,  which  I  believe  was  painted 
in  1811,  by  Vanderlyn.  Next  to  the  1802  portrait  of  her,  this  is  the  finest  and 
most  artistic  representation  of  her  features  extant,  and  is  beyond  doubt  the 
most  astonishing  reproduction  in  progeny  of  parental  features  ever  recorded. 
It  is  Burr  himself  at  his  zenith.  In  the  Catalogue  of  the  Celebrated  Dr.  William 
H.  Crimm  Collection  of  Genuine  Antiques,  sold  in  Baltimore,  Maryland,  in  April,  1903,  it  was 
described  under  Lot  787,  as  Portrait  Supposed  to  be  Theodosia  Burr.  Artist  unknown.  It  was 
purchased  by  Henry  Alio  way,  Esq.,  of  Goshen,  New  York,  for  sixteen  dollars,  my  own  agent 
not  having  arrived  early  enough  to  secure  it.  Most  of  the  bidders  at  the  sale  were  in  pursuit  of 
mahogany  and  household  decorations,  and  it  was  overlooked.  Before  leaving  Baltimore,  Mr. 
Alloway  had  the  satisfaction  of  having  the  correctness  of  his  purchase  confirmed  by  members 
of  the  Burr  and  Edwards  families,  who  unsuccessfully  contended  for  its  repurchase,  and  per- 
haps had  the  greater  satisfaction  of,  a  few  years  later,  passing  it  to  me  for  as  many  hundreds 
as  he  had  paid  dollars.  An  inquiry  addressed  to  the  auctioneer,  or  an  announcement  from  the 
rostrum,  gave  its  provenance  as  the  Alston  family,  of  South  Carolina.  In  investigating  the 
origin  of  the  Vanderlyn  portrait  of  Colonel  Burr,  in  the  possession  of  the  New  York  Historical 
Society,  I  tried  to  establish  the  presence  of  Vanderlyn  in  this  country  in  1809.  If  this  conten- 
tion is  proven,  it  would  have  been  possible  for  Vanderlyn  to  have  painted  this  portrait  in  that 
year,  failing  which,  we  must  deduce  that  Vanderlyn  visited  America  in  1811.  Theodosia  was 
in  New  York  from  Oct.  31,  1808,  to  Feb.  19, 1809.  She  was  ill  in  November,  1808,  but  better, 
if  not  well,  in  March,  1809.  Moderate  sickness  would  have  been  no  bar,  but  rather  an  incen- 
tive to  sitting,  hence  if  Vanderlyn  was  here  in  1809,  it  could  well  have  been  done  at  that  time, 
though  again  I  repeat  the  margin  of  safety  in  time  is  small  as  argued  in  the  chapters  on  the 
Vandyck  and  the  New  York  Historical  Society's  portrait  of  her  father.  The  presumption  that 
Vanderlyn  may  have  visited  America  in  1811,  and  that  the  painting  of  Theodosia  may  have 
been  painted  that  year,  rests  upon  certain  allusions  in  Burr's  diary : 

Paris,  April  1,  1811,  he  writes  to  Theodosia  .  .  .  "know  that  Vanderlyn  will  sail  for  the 
United  States  some  time  in  May.  By  him  you  shall  know  everything,  and  by  him  you  shall 
have  your  books." 

Vanderlyn,  apparently,  did  not  sail  in  May,  for  Burr,  on  July  11,  1811,  writes:  "The  let- 
ters of  Gamp  [his  grandson]  have  not  come.  They  will  come,  however,  for  I  will  ransack  all 
Europe  for  them.  By  Vanderlyn  will  write  him." 

So  late  as  Aug.  7, 1811,  Burr  wrote  Vanderlyn  from  Amsterdam: .  .  .  "If  you  could  leave 
Paris  within  forty-eight  hours  after  having  this,  there  is  no  doubt  you  would  be  in  time  for  the 


{  56  } 


Theodosia  Burr  Alston  1811  John  Vanderlyn 

Dr.  John  E.  Stillwell 


Vigilant,  and  there  is  now  plenty  of  room  for  all,  the  French  and  the  Dutch  passengers,  thrown 
out  by  some  new  imperial  order.  If  you  come  not,  I  insist  on  your  finishing  further  Theodosia's 
picture  in  your  best  manner.  Adieu.  A.  B."  (From  letters  found  among  the  papers  of  the  Mal- 
loy  family  of  Kingston,  New  York,  which  were  originally  given  to  Dominie  Robert  L.  Goos- 
man,  of  Kingston,  by  Vanderlyn  at  the  time  of  his  death  in  1853.  They  were  published  in  the 
New  York  Sunday  World  in  1903.) 

After  this  date  I  find  Burr  making  no  further  allusion  to  Vanderlyn,  and  it  well  may  be 
that  he  had  sailed  to  America. 

Nothing  would  have  been  more  natural  than  that  Governor  Alston  should  wish  for  a  por- 
trait of  his  wife,  and  that  this  one  was  especially  painted  for  him,  whether  it  was  done  in  1809 
or  in  1811,  I  feel  quite  assured.  It  became  an  Alston  possession,  and  so  remained  until  it  was 
secured  by  Dr.  Crimm.  Other  Burr  portraits  perhaps  passed  to  the  Alstons.  Theodosia's  father 
wrote,  April  5,  1802,  "I  have  ordered  Vanderlyn  to  send  you,  from  New  York,  both  his  and 
Stuart's  picture  of  A.  Burr.  ...  I  have  also  desired  that  my  beautiful  little  bust  of  Bonaparte 
be  sent  to  Mrs.  William  Alston."  If  these  portraits  ever  were  sent  they  were  later  returned, 
for  the  subsequent  history  of  both  portraits  is  known;  the  bust,  if  it  ever  reached  its  destina- 
tion, is  now  unknown  to  me.  But  other  portraits  of  Colonel  Burr  were,  perhaps,  possessed  by 
his  daughter,  and  if  so,  may  have  remained  with  the  Alstons,  perhaps  to  be  destroyed  during 
the  Civil  War. 

Governor  Joseph  Alston,  severely  ailing  before  his  wife's  death,  and  further  crushed  by 
her  tragic  removal,  died  Sept.  10,  1816.  Feb.  16,  preceding  this  event,  he  wrote  to  Colonel 
Burr:  "Vanderlyn,  I  perceive  from  the  papers,  has  returned  to  New  York.  Nothing,  I  trust, 
has  prevented  him  from  bringing  back  the  portrait  [of  Theodosia]  you  left  with  him.  Let  me 
again  entreat  you  to  use  your  influence  with  him  in  procuring  me  a  good  copy.  I  received  some 
days  since,  through  the  kindness  of  Mrs.  John  B.  Prevost,  a  miniature,  which  appears  to  have 
been  taken  from  Vanderlyn's  portrait.  The  execution  is  good,  but  in  expression  it  is  by  no 
means  equal  to  the  portrait."  It  was  probably  one  of  the  enamelled  medallions. 

I  doubt  whether  Governor  Alston  had  his  wish  complied  with,  so  far  as  Theodosia's  por- 
trait was  concerned,  for  Vanderlyn  was  overworked,  and  he,  Alston,  died  too  soon  thereafter. 
A  few  weeks  following  his  demise,  his  brother,  William  A.  Alston,  wrote  to  Colonel  Burr  that 
his  son-in-law,  Governor  Alston,  had  cancelled,  in  his  will,  all  demands  that  he  had  against 
him,  and  sought  from  Colonel  Burr  instructions  how  to  send  a  certain  trunk  to  him  contain- 
ing, his  late  brother  said,  things  that  belonged  to  your  daughter  Theodosia,  and  which  "he 
never  had  the  courage  to  open;"  and  to  complete  the  disposal  of  her  estate  a  certain  collection 
of  other  articles,  probably  personal  attire,  was  to  be  sent  to  the  eldest  daughter  of  Mr.  J.  B. 
Prevost. 

This  likeness  of  Theodosia  Burr  is  most  striking.  She  is  painted  in  profile,  her  prominent 
forehead  and  piercing  dark  eye  being  the  most  outstanding  features.  Her  abundant  auburn 
hair  curls  loosely  upon  her  temple  and  is  massed  above  and  behind  her  head.  Her  ear  and  jowl 
are  heavy,  her  nose  nearly  Grecian,  and  her  upper  lip  short  and  bowed.  Her  dress  is  cut  V 
shaped  at  the  neck,  and  edged  with  lace  which  merges  into  a  standing  lace  collar  of  double 
thickness.  The  resemblance  of  this  portrait  to  the  1802  portrait,  of  her  father,  Colonel  Burr, 
by  Vanderlyn,  is  truly  remarkable. 

i  57  > 


The  Biays  Crayon  Portrait 

Of 

Theodosia  Burr 


mm. 


mm 


OCTOR  LEAMING,  of  New  York  City,  an  able  lung  specialist,  when  I  was  a 
youth  in  the  practice  of  medicine,  was  beloved  by  everyone  because  of  his 
kindness.  I  was  too  young  to  know  him  well,  but  he  collected  art  of  every  de- 
scription, some  of  considerable  mediocrity.  The  dear  old  Doctor  had  a  fond- 
ness for  scrubbing,  with  solvents,  the  surfaces  of  his  newly  acquired  paintings 
always  hoping  that  a  later  might  cover  an  earlier  painting,  perhaps  a  masterpiece.  Many  can- 
vases came  to  an  end,  but  not  his  enthusiasm,  that  endured  until  his  gentle  soul  passed  on. 
Then  followed  the  dispersal  of  his  goods.  Among  the  articles  sold  was  a  pastel  portrait  of  Theo- 
dosia Burr.  Of  antecedent  history  it  had  none.  Nor  has  subsequent  effort  added  anything  to 
its  history. 

It  represents  Theodosia  Burr  done  in  profile,  in  crayon,  at  breast  length,  with  her  charac- 
teristic features:  the  lobe  of  a  large  ear,  hazel  eyes,  heavy  chin  and  jowls,  with  rather  bowed 
hps,  nearly  Grecian  nose,  and  a  superabundance  of  curly  hair  falling  in  mass  upon  too  heavy  a 
neck,  but  a  type-arrangement  nevertheless  of  that  period.  It  is  Theodosia  Burr  done  by  an 
earnest  though  not  brilliant  artist,  one  who  gives  us  a  pleasing  rather  than  a  great  portrait. 
His  draughtsmanship  is  competent  though  not  distinguished,  and  his  colors,  slightly  mellowed 
by  time,  are  still  fresh  and  well  preserved.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  the  photograph  from 
which  the  reproduction  is  made  is  so  bad  that  injustice  is  done  the  original,  but  it  was  the  best 
obtainable  from  a  local  photographer.  The  present  owner  of  the  portrait  is  Mrs.  Lalla  Biays, 
Hooks  Mill,  Hancock,  Maryland,  who  has  kindly  consented  to  its  reproduction. 


{  58  } 


Theodosia  Burr 


Unknown  Artist 

Mrs.  Lalla  Biays 


The  Nag's  Head  Portrait 

Of 

Theodosia  Burr  Alston 


GONIZED  by  the  death  of  her  only  child,  broken  in  health  and  anxious  to  meet 
her  beloved  father,  Theodosia,  with  the  approval  of  her  husband,  sailed  from 
Georgetown,  South  Carolina,  for  New  York,  Dec.  30,  1812,  on  the  pilot  boat 
Patriot.  She  never  reached  her  destination.  Burr  and  his  immediate  family,  as 
well  as  Governor  Alston  and  his  family,  believed  that  the  ship  foundered  off 
Cape  Hatteras,  in  the  severe  storm  which  arose  January  1,  1813,  and  that  all  on  board  were 
lost.  The  romantic  and  the  credulous  attributed  the  ship's  non  arrival  to  destruction  by  pir- 
ates, then  infesting  the  Southern  Atlantic  waters;  while  others  hoped  that  The  Patriot  had  sur- 
rendered to  a  British  man-of-war  and  that  Theodosia  might  be  temporarily  a  prisoner.  This 
hope  was  soon  abandoned,  but  the  pirate  rumor  remained,  insistent  yet  unproven.  From  time 
to  time  it  received  accentuation  by  the  confessions  of  dying  pirates.  Of  low  mentality,  aged, 
sick  and  fear  stricken  they  aroused  the  sympathy  of  the  good  and  the  kind  by  death  bed  re- 
pentance, and  told  circumstantial  stories  of  Theodosia's  death  by  walking  the  plank,  follow- 
ing the  surrender  of  The  Patriot  to  pirates.  Pidgin,  in  his  Theodosia,  gives  these  statements  at 
length  and  I  abridge  what  he  and  his  contributors  say  in  the  following  resume:  (1)  in  1833, 
twenty  years  after  the  event,  a  pirate  dying  in  Mobile,  told  his  physician,  who  told  a  respect- 
able merchant,  that  it  was  he  who  placed  the  plank  and  forced  Theodosia  to  walk  it;  (2) 
Dominique  You,  apparently  a  primitive  brute  of  colossal  size,  in  melodramatic  language,  con- 
fessed to  Dr.  Rhineberg,  that  on  Jan.  3,  1813,  he  and  his  crew  of  pirates  boarded  The  Patriot, 
off  of  Cape  Hatteras,  which  was  dismantled  by  a  recent  storm,  slaughtered  and  threw  over 
the  crew,  saved  Theodosia  from  bodily  assault,  but  in  conformity  to  his  piratical  oath,  or- 
dered her  to  her  death  by  walking  the  plank.  When  the  confession  is  finished  you  are  con- 
vinced that  either  Dominique  or  the  doctor  was  a  scholar,  or  more;  (3)  in  1850,  thirty-seven 
years  after  the  event,  Benjamin  Franklin  Burdick,  an  aged  sailor,  in  the  Cass  County  Poor 
House,  at  Cassiopolis,  Michigan,  confessed  to  Mrs.  Parks,  the  wife  of  a  Methodist  minister, 
that  he  was  the  pirate  who  tipped  the  plank  that  Odessa  Burr  Alston  was  forced  to  walk; 
(4  and  5)  two  criminals,  executed  in  Norfolk,  Virginia,  confessed  to  being  among  the  crew  who 
boarded  The  Patriot  and  forced  Theodosia  to  walk  the  plank ;  (6)  a  sailor  dying  in  Texas  con- 
fessed that  he  was  one  of  the  crew  of  pirates  who  participated  in  the  death  of  Theodosia  and 
(7)  lastly  there  was  Babe,  an  admitted  pirate  and  suspect,  who  had  a  temporary  residence  in 
the  New  York  Tombs,  but  who  really  conceded  nothing.  By  this  time  the  crew  is  pretty  well 
accounted  for.  How  much  of  truth  and  how  much  of  criminal  morbidity  occurs  in  their  state- 
ments it  is  impossible  to  determine,  but  I  should  feel  reluctant  to  accept  any  of  them  as  the 
death  certificate  of  Theodosia  Burr.  But  at  this  juncture  there  is  injected  into  the  situation  a 


<  59  } 


much  more  serious  and  stronger  claim  for  piracy.  Apparently  there  were  two  sets  of  pirates  in 
1813,  the  buccaneers  or  highwaymen  of  the  sea,  of  which  the  foregoing  were  some,  and  another 
group  winch  operated  on  or  close  to  the  shore  ostensibly  as  fishermen,  but  who  were  really 
land  pirates.  They  occupied  the  sand  bars  that  fence  the  coast  of  North  Carolina  from  the 
Atlantic  Ocean  and  were  locally  known  as  bankers.  "The  banker  of  one  hundred  years  ago 
was  almost  a  barbarian  ...  his  savage  instincts  induced  him  to  use  every  means  to  lure  vessels 
ashore  for  purposes  of  plunder.  And  when  a  wreck  occurred,  the  wreckers  held  high  carnival. 
The  sparse  population  turned  out  en  masse,  and  with  demoniac  yells  murdered  without  re- 
morse the  helpless  victims  who  escaped  the  raging  surf,"(Betty  F.  Pool);  and  while  today  they 
have  vastly  improved,  they  remain  "an  unprincipaled  people,  piratical,  superstitious,  un- 
cleanly and  ignorant."  Whether  The  Patriot  simply  foundered  during  the  violent  January  gale 
of  1813,  or  whether  she  succumbed  to  the  attack  of  buccaneers  or  whether  "the  bankers"  or 
land  pirates  completed  what  the  gale  or  sea  pirates  started,  may  remain  a  matter  of  specula- 
tion, but  there  is  interwoven  with  her  loss  the  history  of  a  stranded  vessel  from  which  was 
recovered  the  portrait  of  an  attractive  young  woman  supposedly  Theodosia  Burr  Alston. 

In  1869,  Dr.  William  Gaskins  Pool,  of  Elizabeth  City,  North  Carolina,  was  called  in  a 
professional  capacity  to  see  Mrs.  Mann,  a  woman  approximately  seventy  years  of  age,  who 
resided  at  Nag's  Head  or  Kittyhawk,  Cape  Hatteras.  Mrs.  Mann  was  a  poor,  suspicious,  sul- 
len soul  who  developed  a  sense  of  gratitude  for  the  doctor's  medical  attention  and  paid  him 
by  the  gift  of  a  portrait  which  was  practically  the  sole  ornament,  and  the  only  thing  of  value 
that  adorned  her  dirty  house,  built  from  the  timbers  of  wrecks,  thatched  with  reeds  and 
oakum.  It  represented  a  young  and  beautiful  woman  with  hair  tinged  with  auburn,  piercing 
black  eyes,  pink  cheeks  and  red  lips,  dressed  in  a  white  gown  cut  square  at  the  neck,  painted 
upon  a  panel,  whose  dimensions  are  variously  given  as  12  x  18  inches,  18  x  20  inches  and  27  x 
30  inches,  which  according  to  a  later  allusion  was,  during  Dr.  Pool's  ownership,  slightly  dam- 
aged by  fire  in  the  destruction  of  his  mansion  at  Eyrie.  Dr.  Pool  extracted  from  Mrs.  Mann 
the  following  statement  which  he  never  felt  sure  was  the  whole  story  nor  the  exact  truth. 
When  about  sixteen  years  of  age  she  became  the  common  law  wife  of  Joseph  Tillett,  a  young 
fisherman,  and  a  leader  among  his  fellow  men.  During  his  wooing  he  presented  her  with  this 
painting,  two  black  home  spun  silk  dresses,  made  with  low  bodices,  short  sleeves  and  full 
skirts,  apparel  for  a  gentlewoman  of  small  physique,  and  a  lace  head  covering,  which  was  his 
share  of  the  salvage  of  a  small  pilot  boat  which  he  and  his  companions,  just  at  dawn,  descried 
driving  straight  towards  Nag's  Head,  with  rudder  set  and  sails  drawing.  After  she  struck,  they 
boarded  her  but  could  not  ascertain  her  identity.  From  certain  concomitant  facts,  the  date 
was  deduced  as  January,  1813.  From  what  he  heard,  Dr.  Pool  had  no  occasion  to  suspect  Til- 
lett and  his  associates  were  the  pirates  who  boarded  The  Patriot  and  murdered  her  crew  and 
passenger,  but  it  seemed  at  least  possible  that  Tillett  knew  more  than  he  chose  to  tell  his 
future  wife,  and  that  she  knew  more  than  what  she  told  to  Dr.  Pool.  Enough  was  given  him, 
however,  to  arouse  in  his  mind  the  suspicion  that  the  pilot  boat  may  have  been  The  Patriot, 
and  the  portrait  that  of  Theodosia  Burr  Alston.  His  assumptions  rested  upon  the  tallying 
dates  of  the  appearance  of  the  wreck  and  the  disappearance  of  the  woman;  upon  the  finding  of 
a  portrait  of  a  woman  of  Theodosia's  age  in  this  wreck  of  a  pilot  boat ;  of  accompanying  cloth- 


{  60  } 


Theodosia  Burr  Alston 


Mr.  Herbert  L.  Pratt 


Unknown  Artist 


ing  fit  for  a  lady  of  Theodosia's  station  and  figure,  and  that  the  loss  of  no  boat  or  lady  of  dis- 
tinction was  known  at  this  date  other  than  The  Patriot  and  TheodosiaBurr  Alston. 

Conceding  there  is  a  strong  probability  that  the  boat  was  The  Pilot  and  its  passenger 
Theodosia,  there  still  remains  to  be  solved  the  method  of  its  destruction  and  the  manner  of  her 
death.  The  proof  of  sea  piracy,  based  upon  the  confessions  of  a  lot  of  dying  miscreants,  raises 
skepticism  to  a  high  level,  yet  piracy  did  exist,  and  walking  the  plank  was  a  common  means  of 
death,  and  it  is  only  from  the  mouths  of  such  boastful  or  penitent  rascals  that  evidence  is  pro- 
curable. The  statements  of  the  verminous  bankers  are,  to  say  the  least,  fantastic.  As  a  rule 
pirates  burned,  scuttled  or  abandoned  less  desirable  boats  than  their  own.  A  set  table,  set 
sails  and  lashed  helm  savor  of  fiction;  a  painting  and  books  were  undesirable  and  might  be 
left,  but  silks  and  plate  would  hardly  be  overlooked.  Not  a  soul  on  board  and  the  vessel  looted 
might  as  readily  be  the  work  of  land  pirates  as  of  sea  pirates  and  the  former  may  have  finished 
what  the  elements  and  not  men  had  started.  And  to  this  I  incline.  And  credence  must  be  given  to 
the  Admiral  in  command  of  the  British  fleet  off  the  Capes,  to  whom  a  letter  was  addressed  by 
Governor  Alston,  asking  for  a  safe  conduct  for  his  wife,  because  of  her  misfortunes  and  mis- 
sion, who  stated  the  letter  was  received  by  him  and  the  request  promptly  granted,  but  that  a 
very  violent  storm  arose  during  the  night  and  the  fleet  was  scattered  and  doubtless  the  pilot 
boat  and  all  on  board  were  lost.  There  are  too  many  possibilities  for  any  one  to  speak  with 
finality,  and  a  haze  too  inpenetrable  for  speculation  to  fathom  remains  to  enshroud  the  man- 
ner of  the  death  of  Theodosia  Burr  Alston. 

Does  the  same  degree  of  uncertainty  envelope  the  Nag's  Head  portrait?  Nothing  would 
have  been  more  natural  than  for  such  a  daughter,  separated  from  such  a  father,  to  have  had 
painted  for  him  a  portrait  of  herself.  Nothing  could  have  been  more  appropriate  nor  likely  to 
be  more  highly  prized  than  a  portrait  to  be  left  as  a  souvenir  of  a  brief  visit.  Inspiration  is 
proven.  Local  talent,  the  best  available  no  doubt,  was  requisitioned.  The  work  must  have  been 
executed  in  the  Spring  of  1812,  when  approaching  her  twenty-ninth  year,  and  prior  to  the 
death  of  her  boy  (June  30,  1812),  for  from  that  time  she  sank  into  such  a  state  of  apathy  that 
any  thought  of  the  portrayal  of  her  sick  forlorn  body  would  never  have  occurred  to  her,  nor 
would  an  act  so  mundane  have  appealed  to  her.  If  the  creation  of  this  portrait  was  ever  known 
to  Burr  it  was  given  no  further  thought  for,  naturally,  he  would  consider  it  lost — lost  with  his 
valuable  papers  and  his  priceless  child.  If  only  the  inhospitable  shores  of  North  Carolina 
could  have  surrendered  to  him  this  one  thing  to  soften  the  agony  of  that  long  separation !  So 
far  I  have  assumed  that  the  Nag's  Head  portrait  represents  Theodosia  despite  the  fact  that 
neither  on  books,  papers  nor  plate  is  there  known  to  have  been  found  the  initials  or  names  of 
Burr  or  Alston.  Is  the  assumption  sustained?  I  think  so.  For  fifty-six  years  it  hung  in  a  hovel 
during  which  time  those  who  had  known  her  intimately,  and  whose  identification  would  have 
been  dependable,  passed  away  and  the  attribution  must  now  rest  upon  inherent  evidence  and 
comparative  analysis.  No  one  but  a  student  of  portraiture  realizes  how  difficult  such  deduc- 
tions are,  how  wavering  such  opinions  are  and  how  hesitatingly  conclusions  are  reached.  The 
variety  of  expression  that  different  artists  give  the  same  subject,  the  changes  that  years  bring, 
the  different  angles,  poise,  dress,  technic,  palette,  etc.,  that  enter  into  the  composition  of  a 
painting  have  all  to  be  weighed.  The  resemblance  of  consanguinity  which  has  been  claimed, 


{  61  > 


I  look  upon  as  chance  rather  than  an  expression  of  heredity,  especially  when  the  kinship  used 
for  comparison  is  so  far  removed  as  fourth  and  fifth  cousins.  The  essential  features  of  resemb- 
lance in  the  Nag's  Head  portrait  to  the  known  characteristics  of  Theodosia's  features  he  in 
(1)  the  apparent  age  of  twenty-eight;  (2)  the  piercing  dark  eyes;  (3)  the  hair  touched  with 
auburn;  (4)  the  dress  cut  square  at  the  neck;  (5)  a  certain  heaviness  of  the  jowls;  (6)  a  rather 
short  nose;  (7)  a  large  ear,  and  while  the  general  massiveness  of  feature,  the  want  of  delicacy 
and  plasticity  in  the  modelling  and  the  squareness  of  the  face,  detract  from  the  beauty  of  the 
portrait,  they  may  readily  be  the  results  of  inferior  workmanship  or  needed  restorations.  Van- 
derlyn  probably  arrived  in  America  in  July,  1811,  and  must  have  visited  The  Oaks,  Governor 
Alston's  South  Carolina  home,  where  he  painted  another  portrait  of  Theodosia  which  rivals, 
in  excellence  and  beauty,  the  one  of  her  that  he  painted  in  1802,  which  he  and  the  world  have 
pronounced  so  masterly.  By  comparison  with  the  1811  portrait  the  Nag's  Head  portrait  falls 
mightily,  but  the  inferiority  and  differences  may  be  explained  away  when  one  admits  the  im- 
possibility of  contrasting  a  profile  and  a  full  face,  and  concedes  that  Vanderlyn's  conception 
and  brush  were  as  mighty  as  the  other  artists'  conception  and  brush  were  puny  and  immature. 
Why  was  this  superb  (1811)  work  of  Vanderlyn  withheld  from  her  father  and  the  inferior  one 
(the  Nag's  Head)  substituted  no  doubt  will  be  quickly  asked.  The  answer  is  as  quickly  given- 
it  was  not  hers  to  give;  it  belonged  to  a  loving  husband,  fatally  sick,  and  recently  bereft  of  his 
only  child  and  now  about  to  part  with  his  wife.  What  would  be  more  natural  than  for  him,  the 
husband,  to  cling  to  this  wondrous  likeness!  And  thus  it  (1811)  remained  among  the  Alstons 
in  the  South,  with  Burr,  the  father,  caressing  the  portrait  of  his  beloved  Theodosia  (painted 
in  1802),  so  long  the  companion  of  his  travels  and  the  pride  of  his  heart.  With  the  internal 
evidence  and  its  history,  I  think  the  Nag's  Head  portrait  may  safely  be  accepted  as  the  last 
portrayal  of  the  features  of  that  remarkable  woman,  the  greatest  of  her  sex,  Theodosia  Burr 
Alston. 

Upon  the  death  of  Dr.  Pool,  the  portrait  became  the  property  of  his  daughter,  Anna  L. 
Pool,  wife  of  John  Pool  Overman,  of  Elizabeth  City,  North  Carolina.  In  time  it  became  the 
property  of  the  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York  City,  art  dealer  William  Macbeth,  who  sold  it,  in 
1913,  to  Mr.  Herbert  L.  Pratt,  of  New  York  City,  in  whose  possession,  in  1928,  it  remains. 


{  62  > 


Theodosia  Burr  Alston  Posthumous 

Dr.  John  E.  Stillwell 


John  Vanderlyn 


Vanderlyn's  Unfinished  Portrait 

Of 

Theodosia  Burr  Alston 

ROM  (1)  the  maturity  of  the  features,  (2)  its  unfinished  state,  (3)  the  artist's 
well  known  admiration  for  the  deceased,  and  (4)  the  unshakable  conviction  of 
the  Misses  Vanderlyn,  from  whom  I  directly  bought  the  portrait,  in  1882,  that 
it  was  the  work  of  their  uncle  John  Vanderlyn  and  a  portrait  of  Theodosia 
Burr  Alston,  the  only  conclusion  that  may  be  drawn  is  that  it  represents  a  post- 
humous creation.  Her  tragic  death  and  his  attachment  would  readily  prompt  such  an  idealiza- 
tion. From  1811,  when  he  had  last  seen  her,  until  his  return  to  America  in  1815,  was  a  period 
of  only  four  years,  and  his  recollection  of  her  features  could  not  have  been  materially  dimin- 
ished. He  elected  to  paint  her  full  face  rather  than  essay  the  easier  profile,  and  it  may  readily 
be  that  it  was  through  dissatisfaction  with  his  results  that  he  left  the  work  unfinished,  yet  it  is 
the  common  habit  of  all  artists  to  finish  a  head  completely  and  leave  the  accessories  incom- 
plete, when  the  portrait  is  to  remain  a  studio  possession.  That  it  was  to  abide  with  him  I  have 
small  doubt. 

As  the  Nag's  Head  portrait  is  a  full  face,  painted  likewise  at  the  end  of  her  life,  it  is  used 
here  for  comparison.  Vanderlyn  has  painted  his  subject  with  a  shapely  oval  face  while  the 
Nag's  Head  portrait  has  a  face  which  is  distinctly  square ;  his  treatment  of  the  hair  and  the 
dress  with  its  short  waist,  still  savors  of  the  Empire,  while  the  Nag's  Head  portrait  has  a  dress 
and  hair  of  a  distinctly  late  feeling,  especially  the  hair.  In  the  eyes,  the  nose  and  the  mouth 
the  two  resemble  each  other,  but  I  am  frank  to  admit  that  the  attribution  of  the  Nag's  Head 
portrait  is  better  sustained  than  this  posthumous  portrait  by  comparisons  with  established 
portraits  of  Theodosia.  Perhaps  the  differences  are  due  to  the  fact  that  one  is  a  real  portrait 
from  life  while  the  other  is  an  ideal  portrait  formed  in  loving  conception  of  Theodosia  as  she 
appeared  to  the  mind  of  the  limner  who  was  her  all  time  devoted  admirer. 

To  describe  a  finished  portrait  that  gives  a  fairly  good  likeness  is  difficult;  to  describe 
satisfactorily  an  unfinished  portrait  is  well  nigh  impossible.  The  Vanderlyn  posthumous  por- 
trait of  Theodosia  is  regretably,  most  regrettably,  unfinished.  Had  it  have  been  brought  to 
completion,  it  would  have  been  a  chef  cToeuvre.  The  white  dress  with  its  high  waist  line  and 
low  cut  neck  and  loosely  draped  mantle,  showing  the  body  rotated  forward  to  the  left  at  half 
length,  the  graceful  inclines  of  the  neck  and  shoulders,  and  the  charming  poise  of  the  head 
make  a  satisfying  composition.  The  head  following  the  movement  of  the  body,  shows  an  ex- 
quisitely drawn  oval  face,  a  straight  nose,  a  medium  size  mouth,  large,  dark  brown  eyes  and 
hair  with  a  mid-part  drawn  tightly  to  the  head  and  elevated  at  the  rear.  The  expression  of  her 
face,  if  it  be  not  sad,  is  contemplative.  It  recalls  the  style  of  the  Frenchman,  David,  and  bears 
a  resemblance  to  the  sisters  of  the  first  Napoleon — a  beautiful  woman,  painted  con  amore. 

On  canvas.  Size  26  inches  high  by  22  inches  wide. 

{  63  } 


Colonel  Burr's  Natural  Children 


And 

The  Burr  Divorce 

T  HAS  always  been  conceded  that  Burr  was  a  faithful  and  devoted  husband  to 
his  first  wife.  The  death  of  this  lady,  Theodosia,  widow  of  Colonel  James  Mar- 
cus Prevost,  and  the  daughter  of  Theosodius  Bartow  by  his  wife  Ann  Stillwell, 
occurred  in  1794,  after  a  union  with  Burr  of  twelve  years.  It  relieved  Burr  of 
marital  restraints.  He  was  then  thirty-eight  years  of  age  and  possessed  of  great 
mental  and  physical  vigor,  qualities  he  retained  forty  years  longer.  When  he  was  nearly  an 
octogenerian,  he  made  a  marriage  of  convenience  with  the  widow  of  Stephen  Jumel,  who 
courted  him  assiduously  and  finally  bagged  him.  Bagged  is  the  only  word  for  it.  Philip  Hone 
in  his  diary  ironically  wrote:  "Wednesday  July  3rd,  1833.  The  celebrated  Colonel  Aaron  Burr 
was  married  on  Monday  evening  to  the  equally  celebrated  Mrs.  Jumel,  widow  of  Stephen 
Jumel.  It  is  benevolent  in  her  to  keep  the  old  man  in  his  latter  days.  One  good  turn  deserves 
another."  This  lady  with  an  antecedent  history  of  lax  morals,  was  overbearing  and  domineer- 
ing beyond  human  endurance  and  was  called  a  devil  incarnate.  She  soon  tired  of  her  new  hus- 
band because  of  his  extravagance  in  money  affairs  and  because  he  had  proved  a  disappoint- 
ment. She  had  gotten  his  name,  but  that  was  all  she  got.  They  soon  split  and  despite  the 
assertions  of  his  friends  that  he  had  become  a  helpless  paralytic,  she  nevertheless  proceeded 
to  divorce  him,  alleging  statutory  grounds.  The  adultery  was  falsely  proven  and  an  absolute 
divorce  was  granted  her  July  8th,  1836.  Though  she  surrendered  her  late  husband's  name,  and 
was  again  styled  Mme.  Jumel,  she  still  set  such  store  upon  it  and  his  title,  that  she  resumed  it 
when  she  sought  aggrandizement  in  Europe,  where  she  plumed  herself  as  Madame,  Widow  of 
the  Late  Aaron  Burr,  Vice  President  of  the  United  States,  formerly  Madame  Jumel. 

The  interval  between  Burr's  marriages  was  nearly  forty  years,  during  which  he  had  many 
amours;  feminine  attentions  to  him  may  have  diminished,  but  they  never  ceased;  the  im- 
paired attractions  of  his  old  age  must  have  been  overcome  by  his  gallantry  and  personal  mag- 
netism, for  he  was  active  until  near  the  last.  There  was  no  boasting  or  hypocrisy  about  him, 
and  he  was  man  enough  to  assume  the  paternal  care  of  children  born  to  him  at  home  and 
abroad.  Such  were  the  morals  and  the  manners  of  many  of  his  time.  He  was  no  worse  nor 
better  than  his  contemporaries;  no  worse  nor  better  than  the  men  of  today  who  cover  their 
tracks  through  the  vastness  of  this  realm  and  by  crime.  Men  and  morals  never  change. 

While  not  proven,  it  is  quite  generally  believed  that  Col.  Burr  was  the  father  of  one  of  the 
Presidents  of  the  United  States.  As  in  similar  cases,  the  individual  stood  out  in  mental  quali- 
ties and  poise  from  all  of  his  immediate  kindred;  he  was  intimate  with  Burr  and  his  politics 
were  those  of  Burr,  and  there  had  been  opportunity.  I  do  not  know,  however,  that  Burr  ever 
recognized  him  as  a  son.  Not  so,  however,  with  Aaron  Columbus  Burr,  who,  when  a  young 


{  64  } 


man  was  shipped  from  France  to  this  country,  labeled  Aaron,  in  proof  of  his  paternity,  and 
Columbus  in  proof  of  his  American  origin.  Col.  Burr  promptly  befriended  him,  educated  him 
and  was  one  of  the  three  men  who  signed  his  apprenticeship  papers  to  a  jeweler.  Tins  contract, 
the  Colonel's  snuff  box,  a  lock  of  his  hair  and  a  letter  to  Helena  Lewis,  his  daughter  Theo- 
dosia's  small  scissors,  and  Joseph  Alston's  card  plate,  all  intimate  belongings  of  Col.  Burr, 
became  the  property  of  Aaron  Columbus  Burr,  and  passed  to  his  son,  Hip  Burr  upon  his 
(Aaron  Columbus  Burr's)  death  at  No.  30  West  129th  Street,  New  York  City,  in  July,  1882, 
at  the  age  of  seventy-four.  Aaron  Columbus  Burr's  title  to  these  effects  was  probably  derived 
from  being  host  to  Col.  Burr,  in  the  interval  between  his  rupture  with  Madam  Jumel  and  his 
last  illness;  in  other  words  the  Colonel  probably  simply  left  them  behind,  temporarily,  as  he 
may  have  thought,  when  he  withdrew  to  Staten  Island.  That  he  did  sojourn  with  Aaron  Co- 
lumbus Burr  in  1834-5,  at  129  Bowery,  is  uncontrovertibly  proven  by  reference  to  the  City 
Directory  of  that  date  and  the  testimony  of  Dunlap,  who  in  Ins  Diary,  under  date  of  June  18, 
1834,  narrates  that  he  was  accosted  in  the  street  by  Mme.  Jumel,  who  recited  her  grievances 
to  him  and  in  answer  to  his  query  where  does  Colonel  Burr  reside  now,  replied :  with  a  silver- 
smith in  the  Bowery  of  the  name  of  Burr,  young  Aaron  Burr  .  .  .  "What  confidence  can  be 
placed  in  the  words  of  such  a  woman  it  is  hard  to  say,  but  Burr's  marrying  her  makes  any- 
thing told  of  him  credible."  William  Dunlap 's  Manuscript  Diary,  New  York  Historical  Society. 
The  next  year  father  and  son  had  separated.  Col.  Burr  was  very  ill  and  had  been  taken  by  his 
relative,  Judge  Ogden  Edwards,  to  the  Port  Richmond  Hotel,  Staten  Island,  run  by  Daniel 
Winant,  where  it  is  entered  in  the  ledger:  "June  15,  1836,  Colonel  Aaron  Burr  commenced 
board." 

More  convincing  of  this  intimacy  between  father  and  son  is  the  fact  that  Aaron  Columbus 
Burr  became  the  owner,  in  similar  fashion  as  before,  of  the  small  water  color  portrait  of  Col- 
onel Burr  by  Henry  Inman,  the  small  Vandyck  portrait  of  Colonel  Burr,  and  probably  the 
small  (1809)  Vanderlyn  portrait  of  Colonel  Burr  now  in  the  possession  of  the  New  York 
Historical  Society. 

Col.  Burr  had  no  reason  to  be  ashamed  of  his  son,  Aaron  Columbus  Burr — the  boot  was 
on  the  other  leg  if  there  was  any  misfit.  He  became  a  respected  citizen  of  New  York,  and  made 
a  fortune  in  his  jewelry  business  and  as  a  dealer  in  tropical  woods  and  real  estate.  Despite  the 
later  day  statement  of  his  family  that  he  was  an  adopted  son  of  Col.  Burr,  the  fact  remains 
that  "young  Aaron  Burr,"  as  he  was  called,  was,  by  his  own  admissions,  an  illegitimate  son  of 
Col.  Burr  by  a  member  of  the  De  Lisle  family.  He  possessed  several  well  painted  cabinet  por- 
traits of  individuals  of  social  distinction  and  refinement,  one  of  which  he  admitted  was  his 
mother. 

In  a  letter  dated  Paris,  May  17,  1810,  addressed  to  Madame — Burr  alludes  to  "your  two 
pictures  and  that  of  L;  the  latter  I  leave  with  Madame  Pelough,  Rue  du  Croissant,  N°  7, 
sealed  up  and  addressed  to  you  and  subject  to  your  order.  The  others  you  must  allow  me  to 
keep  for  the  present.  If  your  child  should  grow  up  and  survive  you,  it  may  demand  one ;  the 
finished  one.  It  will  be  found  in  the  hands  of  Theodosia,"  etc.  I  am  disposed  to  believe  this 
reference  is  to  the  mother  of  Aaron  Columbus  Burr. 

The  two  following  entries  may  possibly  refer  to  the  De  Lisle  family : 


i  65  > 


Feb.  9,  1811.  "Thinking  of  ways  and  means,  took  that  beautiful  picture  of  Caroline,  and 
desired  Mr.  A.  to  pledge  it  for  what  he  could  get.  It  cost  fifty  guineas,  and  I  doubt  whether  he 
will  get  five  on  it ...  " 

Feb.  11, 1811.  "What  do  you  think  they  had  the  conscience  to  offer  for  Caroline's  picture? 
but  I  may  as  well  tell  you,  for  you'd  never  guess;  eighteen  francs,  about  three  dollars  and  a 
half.  So  took  it  back,"  etc.,  etc. 

Aaron  Columbus  Burr  married  two  estimable  ladies;  first,  Polly  Snethen,  the  widow  of 
Mr.  Coutant,  of  New  Rochelle,  a  lady  seventeen  years  his  senior,  by  whom  he  had  his  only 
child — a  son,  Hippolyte  Burr,  who  died,  unmarried,  when  aged  about  fifty  years;  second, 
Amelia  Middleton,  who  survived  him  and  died  Dec.  15,  1886,  in  her  seventy-first  year.  There 
being  no  further  descendants,  the  remaining  Burr  effects  passed  to  a  niece  of  Aaron  Columbus 
Burr's  second  wife. 


Two  other  natural  children  of  Col.  Burr  are  known.  Whether  because  of  fondness  or 
justice,  he  made  specific  allusion  to  them  in  his  will,  dated  Jan.  11, 1835: 

Second — I  give  to  my  two  daughters  known  by  the  names  of  Frances  Ann,  aged  about  six 
years,  now  residing  with  Mrs.  Frances  Watson,  and  under  the  immediate  care  of  her  daughter 
Mrs.  Sarah  Minthorne  Tompkins;  the  other  daughter,  named  Elizabeth  being  about  the  age 
of  two  years  and  now  residing  with  Mrs.  Guaynetta  Conklin  both  well  known  to  Henry  0. 
Taylor,  all  the  rest  and  residue  of  my  personal  estate,  etc.,  etc.  And  Dec.  27,  1835 — Further  I 
direct  and  order  my  pictures  to  be  given  to  my  two  daughters  on  the  day  of  their  marriage  in 
the  meantime  to  be  in  the  custody  of  my  friend  and  kinsman  Theodosia  Prevost  by  whom  the 
division  is  to  be  made  .  .  .  Item.  I  give  to  my  friend  and  kinsman  Theodosia  Prevost  the  pic- 
ture of  my  daughter  which  is  enamelled  on  a  China  Cup  which  is  believed  to  be  in  the  upper 
drawer  of  my  yellow  desk." 

In  the  Spring  of  1882,  Mrs.  Tompkins  was  located  at  Tarrytown,  N.  Y.,  through  her  son 
Capt.  Minthorne  Tompkins,  of  New  York  City.  She  informed  me  that  Oscar  Taylor,  the  wit- 
ness to  and  legatee  under  Burr's  will,  succumbed  to  tuberculosis  shortly  after  Col.  Burr  died; 
that  Elizabeth,  the  daughter  of  Col.  Burr,  died  young;  that  Frances  A.  Burr,  his  other 
daughter,  was  the  child  of  a  lady  of  thirty-five  or  forty  years  of  age,  who  was  probably  a  resi- 
dent of  Albany,  New  York,  and  who  was  visited  by  Quakers.  She,  the  mother,  was  ill  at  Mrs. 
Tompkin's  house ;  her  name  remains  unknown  and  her  last  visit  to  her  daughter  was  when  the 
child  was  two  years  old.  Frances  Burr  grew  up  a  good  looking,  sweet  dispositioned  and  ac- 
complished lady  and  received  her  education  at  Miss  Haines'  school,  in  Gramercy  Park.  She 
married  Levi  P.  Leach  and  died  about  1879,  leaving  two  sons,  Aaron  Burr  Leach,  aged  about 
twenty-six  years,  in  1882,  and  Stanley  Prevost  Leach,  aged  about  twenty-four  years,  in  1882. 
Mr.  Leach  survived  his  wife  and  taught  school  at  Pearl  River,  Rockland  County,  New  York. 
It  was  his  wife,  Frances,  who  erected  the  monument  over  Col.  Burr's  grave.  What  paintings 
Burr  left  I  have  never  ascertained;  nor  do  I  know  positively  that  Mrs.  Leach  ever  received 
any.  Mrs.  Tompkins  did,  however,  tell  me  that  Mr.  Leach  had  an  unfinished  portrait  of  Burr, 
similar  to  Vanderlyn's  profile,  which  he  considered  was  the  work  of  that  artist  and  which  he 


{66} 


bought  for  about  $100.,  in  a  second  hand  shop.  It  was  from  Mrs.  Tompkins  that  I  obtained 
the  address  of  Col.  William  Dusenbury  Craft,  Burr's  last  law  partner,  who  supplied  me  with 
much  interesting  information  which  will  appear  elsewhere.  My  effort  to  correspond  with  Mr. 
Leach  was  unsuccessful.  I  have  been  told  that  one  of  his  sons  recently  came  to  a  tragic  end  in 
a  town  not  far  distant  from  Pearl  River. 

Burr's  was  a  life  of  mistakes  and  the  greatest  one  of  them  all  was  his  marriage  to  a  prosti- 
tute for  his  keep.  Extenuation  lies  in  his  age  and  his  needs.  Dress  him  up  and  grace  him  as  you 
will  he  was  a  rag  of  the  man  he  once  was,  more  to  be  pitied  than  decried.  Eliza  Bowen  Jumel 
was  not  a  woman  of  reputable  amours,  but  one  of  a  family  of  professional  prostitutes  with  an 
unquenchable  sex  appetite.  Nothing  she  says  can  be  believed.  Touch  as  lightly  as  you  will 
upon  the  divorce  proceedings  which  separated  the  Burrs,  and  a  dirty,  revolting  tale  unfolds. 
There  are  three  classes  in  this  world — purists,  intermediates  and  others.  To  the  first,  holding 
fast  to  antiquated  religious  standards,  no  latitude  in  so  called  illicit  intercourse  is  permissable ; 
to  the  second  it  is  debatable  whether  it  is  wrong  to  nullify  normality  in  mankind,  and  to  the 
third  sex  indulgence  is  simply  hypocrisy  disrobed.  The  sinners  are  in  the  majority  and  neither 
church  nor  state  has  ever  been  able  to  restrain  what  Nature  has  so  strongly  implanted.  Burr 
was  one  of  the  sinners.  In  his  Diary  he  wrote  "Four  francs  for  a  prostitute  and  brandy ;  two  for 
benevolence."  The  brandy  must  have  gone  to  his  head.  Whatever  Ins  amours  were  they  were 
not  highway  activities  and  he  was  as  free  from  cant  as  he  was  from  brag,  and  this  entry  was 
doubtless  solely  for  his  private  eye.  The  defiance  of  decency  lies  in  its  previous  publication. 

Burr's  marriage  to  Mme.  Jumel  was  brought  to  a  summary  close  at  the  end  of  three 
months.  They  had  married  July  1,  1833,  and  in  October  or  November  following  the  Colonel 
walked  out  of  her  house.  Each  charged  the  other  with  bedevilment.  She  tried  to  patch  up  their 
differences  and  reunite  but  failed ;  and  then  the  fury  of  a  woman  scorned  resulted  in  a  suit  for 
an  absolute  divorce.  It  was  started  in  Chancery  by  Eliza  B.  Burr  July  12,  1834.  Burr's  legal 
friends  rallied  to  his  support  and  the  eminent  Charles  O'Connor  qualified  as  his  counsel. 
Madame  fired  the  first  gun,  charging  that  her  husband  had  violated  his  marriage  contract  a 
few  weeks  after  their  union,  by  having  an  affair  in  August,  1833,  with  a  certain  female,  Jane 
McManus,  in  a  certain  house  in  Jersey  City,  "and  committing  adultery  at  divers  times  with 
divers  females  whose  names  are  yet  unknown,"  and  that  he  was  threatening  to  sell  and  dis- 
pose of  his  life  interest  in  her  real  estate  and  was  proceeding  to  waste  and  expend  the  re- 
mainder of  her  personal  estate  and  pay  his  personal  debts  contracted  before  their  marriage, 
therewith. 

Burr  entered  a  general  denial  and  countercharged  that  he  left  her  house  because  of  her 
"violent  and  ferocious  temper"  and  "because  she  behaved  in  a  manner  most  undutiful,  dis- 
obedient and  insulting  and  particularly  at  a  time  when  this  defendant  was  in  a  very  low  state 
of  health  and  not  expected  to  survive"  and  "avers  he  was  credibly  informed  and  believes  it  to 
be  true  and  expects  to  so  prove  that  the  complainant  hath  committed  adultery  with  one  or 
more  persons;"  he  further  justified  his  sale  of  her  property  and  the  disbursements  attached 
thereto  and  defends  Ins  rights  in  her  very  large,  varied  and  valuable  estate.  It  would  have  been 


i  67  } 


well  if  both  had  stopped  here,  but  recriminations  followed.  Burr  amplified  his  statements  con- 
cerning her  adulterous  relations  and  declared  that  as  yet  he  had  discovered  the  names  of  only 
four  of  her  paramours,  to  wit:  William  B.  Parsons,  Robert  Coveny  and  another  believed  to  be 
James  Somers,  formerly  in  her  employ,  and  one  Lawrence,  christian  name  unknown.  Later  in 
a  petition  to  the  Vice  Chancellor  he  asked  to  be  allowed  to  amend  his  answer  so  as  to  include 
in  the  list  four  more  individuals:  Charles  Parry,  Patrick  Delehanty,  Charles  Saunders  and  a 
Mr.  Connor,  alleging  "that  ever  since  the  commencement  of  the  suit  he  had  been  confined  to 
his  chamber  from  ill  health,  except  on  one  or  two  occasions  when  he  had  for  not  more  than  one 
hour  at  each  time  with  great  difficulty  gone  abroad,"  owing  to  which  he  had  embarrassment 
and  difficulty  in  conducting  the  defence.  It  is  appalling  to  think  to  what  possible  size  the  list 
might  have  grown  had  his  activities  not  been  restrained  by  sickness.  Mme.  Burr  came  back  at 
him  furiously  and  made  a  sweeping  denial  of  every  accusation  and  charged  that  his  state- 
ments were  false  in  every  particular  and  were  fabricated  for  wicked  and  corrupt  purposes;  that 
Robert  Coverney  was  simply  a  servant  in  her  employ  during  1833,  whom  she  discharged  for 
intoxication  and  that  he  had  unsuccessfully  sued  her  for  wages,  since  which  he  had  been  hos- 
tile and  slanderous  and  was  helped  thereto  by  Aaron  Burr's  money,  and  as  for  James  Somers 
or  Saunders,  also  Charles  Saunders,  and  Mr.  Connor,  she  had  never  heard  of  them.  William 
B.  Parsons  swore  he  had  not  been  on  friendly  terms  with  her  for  eight  years,  and  Patrick 
Delehanty  swore  that  he  was  simply  her  coachman  for  seven  months  and  saw  nothing  to  lead 
him  to  believe  or  suspect  her  of  unchastity.  Three  inferior  people,  raised  in  her  own  family, 
testified  to  her  good  character.  And  so  the  white  washing  went  on.  Not  content,  however,  with 
such  clearance  and  still  stung  to  madness  by  his  impeachment,  the  virtuous  beldame,  still 
aflame  with  hatred,  lost  control  of  herself  and  wildly  proclaimed  "as  to  the  allegation  con- 
tained in  said  petition  that  the  said  defendant  had  not  cohabited  with  this  deponent  since  the 
time  therein  specified,  this  deponent  saith  that  shortly  after  marriage  with  said  Aaron  Burr 
his  lewd  and  polluted  habits  became  so  manifest  to  the  deponent,  that  for  the  protection  of 
her  health  and  reputation  she  was  compelled  to  decline  all  association  with  him."  With  a 
wealth  of  accumulated  wisdom  she  was  certainly  competent  to  express  herself  upon  this  sub- 
ject, but  her  vulgar  frankness  makes  the  truth  of  her  evidence  questionable.  The  litigation 
which  for  a  time  was  so  vigorously  contested  by  both  parties  now  dragged.  The  defence  was 
crippled.  Burr  was  sick  and  they  could  not  proceed.  Counsel  had  no  means  at  hand  to  refute 
the  charges  of  perjury  and  subornation  of  perjury  and  the  Vice-Chancellor,  upon  the  evidence 
submitted,  held  that  the  complainant  had  proven  that  there  was  not  the  least  truth  in  the 
recriminatory  charges  which  were  set  on  foot  for  the  worst  of  motives,  and  referred  the  case  to 
Philo  B.  Ruggles,  Master  in  Chancery,  who  took  the  testimony  of  Maria  Johnson,  of  Newark, 
one  time  servant  of  Mme.  Jumel,  who,  like  her  son,  Colonel  Craft  asserted,  was  half  witted. 
Under  oath  she  said  "that  in  the  first  week  in  August  in  the  year  1833  she  saw  the  above 
named  defendant,  Aaron  Burr,  in  bed  with  Jane  McManus  at  a  house  in  Jersey  City.  This  was 
in  the  evening  of  Friday  of  that  week. 

This  deponent  further  saith  that  on  the  Saturday  of  the  same  week  she  saw  the  said 
Aaron  Burr  in  the  act  of  committing  adultery  with  the  said  Jane  McManus.  This  was  at  the 
house  of  Aaron  Burr  in  Jersey  City.  The  said  adultery  was  committed  by  them  on  a  settee  in 


<  68  } 


the  back  room  of  the  first  floor  of  this  house.  Deponent  saw  them  through  the  blinds  of  the 
window  of  the  room.  Deponent  turned  the  blinds,  by  which  means  she  was  able  to  see  them. 
This  was  between  two  and  three  o'clock  in  the  afternoon." 
Cross-Examination  by  Charles  O'Connor. 

"I  came  upstairs  to  fetch  a  pitcher  of  hot  water  to  Col.  Burr  through  the  front  room  and 
she  saw  JaneMcManus  on  the  settee  and  Col.  Burr  had  his  hand  under  her  clothes  and  she  saw 
her  nakedness.  They  were  sitting  and  Col.  Burr  had  his  trousers  down.  She  saw  Jane  Mc- 
Manus  with  her  clothes  off.  Col.  Burr  with  his  hand  under  them  and  his  pantaloons  down. 
She  said :  'Oh  la !  Mercy  save  us ! ! !'.  They  rang  the  bell  accidentally." 

Burr  swore  that  her  statements  were  wholly  untrue  and  filed  a  petition  to  examine  the 
corespondent,  Jane  McManus,  who  in  the  interval  had  removed  to  Matagorda,  Texas.  The 
inquiry,  however,  was  never  taken  for  Burr  abandoned  his  defence  by  a  stipulation  filed  in 
Court,  Oct.  24,  1835,  which  allowed  the  original  bill  to  be  taken  pro  confesso.  It  was  a  volun- 
tary, gracious  act  of  gallantry  on  his  part  and  he  lifted  the  stigma  from  her  name,  as  far  as  he 
could,  by  an  admission  of  personal  guilt  which  in  this  instance,  at  least,  was  destitute  of  truth. 
He  realized  he  was  beaten.  Sick  and  weary  of  life's  long  struggle,  of  what  possible  avail  was  it 
to  an  octogenarian  to  attain  success !  So  to  fate  and  Madame  he  bowed.  Two  months  later  he 
was  dead. 

The  introduction  of  this  lewd  story  may  be  in  questionable  taste  but  its  general  accept- 
ance at  the  time  shows  the  degree  of  hostility  felt  towards  Burr.  He  had  no  saintly  past  to  fall 
back  upon,  yet  the  unbelievable  was  believed.  While  the  testimony  of  a  well  coached  half  wit, 
grown  to  believe  in  the  truth  of  her  own  tale,  was  the  ground  for  the  annulment  of  his  marri- 
age, yet  no  credence  was  given  to  the  fact  that  he  was  too  sick  a  man  to  rally  vigorously  to  his 
own  defence  and  that  he  was  paralyzed  from  his  hips  down.  Even  the  Vice  Chancellor,  who 
had  to  find  for  the  complainant,  fails  to  show  the  least  sentiment  of  "justice  tempered  with 
mercy,"  but  rather  a  too  ready  acceptance  of  the  old  saw — "give  a  dog  a  bad  name  and  they 
will  hang  him." 


i  69  } 


The  Jumel  Portraits 


0  round  out  the  history  of  the  Burr  Portraits  I  give  here  the  amazing  story 
of  Mme.  Jumel  based  upon  my  personal  interviews  with  Colonel  William 
Dusenbury  Craft  and  upon  the  printed  statements  of  that  careful  historian, 
William  Henry  Shelton,  Esquire,  made  in  his  Jumel  article  in  the  New  York 
Times,  May  13, 1928,  and  in  his  History  Of  The  Roger  Morris  House,  at  157th 
Street  and  St.  Nicholas  Avenue,  New  York  City.  This  imposing  example  of  colonial  archi- 
tecture of  which  he  treats  is  now  owned  by  the  Colonial  Dames,  and  is  known  as  the  Jumel 
Mansion.  During  the  Revolutionary  War  it  was  the  headquarters  of  Washington  at  Harlem 
Heights,  and  later  it  became  the  property  and  the  home  of  Mme.  Jumel  wherein  was  enacted 
the  latter  half  of  her  life's  ambitions  and  tragic  drama.  It  was  here  she  married  Colonel  Burr, 
a  man  twenty  years  her  senior.  Colonel  William  Dusenbury  Craft,  who  remembered  her  well, 
said  she  was  always  a  skillful  adventuress  and  a  devil  in  petticoats;  a  harlot  turned  respectable 
in  her  old  age.  He  probably  was  right.  She  led  Burr  a  sorry  chase  for  a  short  time.  That  the 
poor  old  man  should  ever  have  touched  her  with  a  pitch  fork  is  astounding;  that  he  should 
ever  have  married  her  is  still  more  amazing,  even  allowing  that  all  the  infirmities  and  ini- 
quities laid  to  his  door  are  true.  To  be  sure  Mme.  Jumel  did  the  courting,  not  he.  After  Burr's 
success  in  the  great  Eden  case  her  large  yellow-bodied  coach,  with  footmen  and  outriders, 
frequently  carried  her  to  his  residence  in  Jay  Street  where  he  had  his  law  office  and  where, 
under  pretext  of  legal  guidance,  she  literally  besieged  him.  The  story  of  reluctance  on  her  part 
and  coercion  on  his  part  is  a  myth;  the  marriage  was  deliberately  planned  by  her.  "It  has  been 
said  that  across  the  proceedings  toward  clearing  the  way  lay  the  shadow  of  a  crime.  If  so,  it 
was  followed  by  remorse  that  steadily  developed  into  insanity."  She  must  have  possessed 
physical  attractions  in  her  youth  and  mental  grasp,  for  despite  the  fact  that  her  gentleman 
father  was  unknown  and  her  mother,  though  married  to  a  sailor,  was  a  woman  of  the  town  of 
Providence,  Rhode  Island,  and  her  own  early  life  one  of  waywardness  and  immorality,  Eliza 
Bowen  attached  to  herself  many  of  the  celebrities  of  her  day  who  were  known,  in  the  limited 
modern  acceptance  of  the  term,  as  her  friends.  She  even  made  an  alliance  with  Stephen  Jumel, 
a  rich  though  emotional  French  merchant,  of  New  York  City.  To  be  sure  this  marriage  was 
accomplished  by  a  trick.  The  story  runs  that  the  future  Mme.  Jumel  represented  that  she  was 
about  to  die,  posed  as  a  penitent  Magdalen  and  sought  spiritual  rehabilitation  in  marriage. 
Proof  of  her  impending  dissolution  was  supplied  by  an  unscrupulous  physician  and  the  need 
and  method  of  her  reformation  by  an  acquiescent  priest.  Then  the  impetuous  Jumel  was  ap- 
pealed to,  and  furthered  her  salvation  by  joining  her  in  belated  wedlock.  Mme.  Jumel  then 
made  a  prompt  recovery,  and  her  recently  acquired  husband,  Monsieur  Jumel,  accommodat- 
ingly remained  obedient  and  hypnotized.  On  the  1st  of  June,  1815,  they  sailed  for  Europe,  in 
the  brig  Eliza,  (named  for  herself),  and  by  a  happy  revolution  of  the  wheel  of  fortune,  on  July 
10,  she  was  solicited  to  be  of  some  anticipated  service  to  Napoleon  in  the  accommodation  of 


{  70  }• 


Mde  de  la  Croix  1797  St.  Memin 


_  WTVt«dH*c.3«.rt*  At  ft 


Imf  U*  *•  how  fttro  *  F»r « 


Madam  Jlmel 


Lithograph 


Madam  Jumel  Henry  Inman 

Dr.  George  L.  Laporte 


members  of  his  staff  on  her  vessel,  in  exchange  for  which  General  Betrand,  representing  the 
Emperor  whom  she  never  saw,  presented  her,  it  is  said  in  the  Emperor's  name,  one  of  the  im- 
perial carriages  to  which  was  annexed  the  Emperor's  campaign  trunk  and  his  travelling  clock. 
They  were  more  likely  discards  than  gifts,  but  the  imperturbable  Eliza,  after  triumphantly 
journeying  to  Paris  in  the  chariot,  had  the  clock  decorated  with  the  following  inscription: 
A.  Mme.  E.  B.  Jumel — Paris — 1815 — Napoleon,  and  thereafter  grew  large  in  reflected  glory. 
Her  life  in  Paris  was  a  small  riot  brought  to  a  summary  termination,  at  the  end  of  fifteen 
months,  by  the  indiscreet  display  of  her  devotion  to  the  dethroned  Napoleon.  She  blazoned 
his  insignia,  as  modified  by  herself,  (the  spread  wings  of  the  eagle,  a  quiver  filled  with  labelled 
arrows,  surmounted  by  a  laurel  wreath)  upon  the  panels  of  her  carriage  and  drove  it  through 
the  streets  of  Paris  and,  still  not  content,  had  it  executed  as  a  carving  for  a  household  orna- 
ment. The  inevitable  followed.  The  French  King  Louis  XVIII,  for  this  affront,  ordered  her 
arrest,  imprisonment  and  expulsion,  and  the  relatively  obscure,  social  American  outcast,  who 
had  been  dissipating,  at  a  furious  rate,  her  husband's  fortune  in  largesse  to  the  impoverished 
French  nobility,  was  returned  (1816)  to  her  own  native  shores.  Washington  Heights  soon  grew 
monotonous  and  five  years  later  (1821),  with  the  apparent  permission  of  Louis  XVIII,  she 
was  again  installed  in  Paris  living  anew  the  same  luxurious,  prodigal  life  and  afloat  the  highest 
court  functions.  Four  years  of  further  plunging  financially  wrecked  the  indulgent  Stephen 
Jumel  and  May,  1826,  found  Madame  at  home  once  more  to  be  followed  two  years  later  by 
her  husband.  "Stephen  Jumel  reached  home  an  old  man,  not  very  welcome,  and  wholly  de- 
pendent on  his  wife,  who  through  a  power  of  attorney,  held  title  to  all  the  property  that  had 
been  his.  He  died  on  May  22,  1832,  and  his  death  caused  another  wave  of  gossip.  He  fell  from 
a  hay  cart,  was  taken  up  insensible  and  bled,  after  the  practice  of  the  doctors  of  that  period. 
The  next  morning  he  was  found  dead  with  the  bandage  off  his  arm.  He  had  bled  to  death. 

"The  only  member  of  his  family  besides  Mme.  Jumel,  was  a  child,  Mary  Marilla  Stever. 
In  1873,  after  a  lapse  of  forty-one  years,  Mary  Marilla,  then  Mrs.  Mary  M.  Mumford,  was 
brought  from  Michigan  to  testify  in  a  will  case.  Under  oath  she  stated  that  she  had  been  sent 
away  before  the  death  of  Stephen  Jumel.  When  asked  if  she  went  away  before  he  was  hurt,  she 
replied:  T  left  the  house  between  the  time  he  was  hurt  and  the  time  when  he  died.'  "  Then 
Burr's  marriage  took  place.  It  lasted  but  a  short  time — a  matter  of  a  few  months — and  ended 
in  his  abrupt  departure.  In  the  face  of  the  suspicions  attending  Stephen  Jumel's  death  perhaps 
it  was  fortunate  for  him  that  the  rupture  occurred,  for  with  a  clamoring  marriage  instinct,  a 
vaulting  ambition  for  high  station  and  a  tottering  intellect  she  could  have  easily  become  a 
reincarnated  Lucretia  Borgia.  She  would  not  then  be  likely  to  allow  aught  to  block  her  pro- 
gress. Burr  had  been  dead  but  a  year  when  "she  conceived  her  most  ambitious  matrimonial 
adventure."  Prince  Louis  Napoleon  had  arrived  in  Hoboken  where  he  put  up  at  a  small  tavern 
too  poor  to  quarter  himself  in  New  York  City.  He  was  young  and  an  aspirant  to  the  French 
throne.  Here  was  her  chance.  Why  should  she,  Mme.  Jumel,  not  share  it  with  him.  Familiar 
with  his  native  tongue  and  his  social  set  it  was  easy  for  her  to  regale  him  at  a  banquet.  The 
acceptance  was  prompt;  the  r.  s.  v.  p's  were  plentiful,  but  Madame  failed  to  qualify  as  hos- 
tess. In  her  effort  to  look  beautiful  she  had  used  a  depilatory  on  an  incipient  moustache  and 
chin  whiskers  with  such  caustic  effect  that  the  pain  and  swelling,  which  promptly  followed, 


i  71  } 


put  her  out  of  the  running;  all  thoughts  of  the  Prince  and  the  feast  were  abandoned  in  the  all 
absorbing  search  for  relief  and  from  future  disfigurement.  And  with  that  misfortune  went  her 
chances  for  the  throne.  She  concerns  us  no  more.  Her  punishment  was  great — she  was  per- 
mitted to  live  until  she  reached  the  age  of  ninety-two  years,  during  the  latter  part  of  which 
her  over  toppled  intellect  had  full  sway. 

Couple  what  I  have  written  above  with  what  I  have  written  concerning  her  in  the  small 
Chapter  on  Burr's  Natural  Children  and  enough  has  been  said  of  her  faults ;  virtues  she  had 
none. 

Her  first  likeness  was  made,  in  1797,  by  St.  Memin,  while  she  was  known  as  Miss  St. 
Croix.  The  engraving  certainly  does  not  make  her  a  phenomenal  beauty;  her  features  are 
small  and  her  head  top  heavy  with  a  big  chignon.  It  is  reproduced  in  Dexter's  work  and  is  pre- 
served in  the  various  collections  of  St.  Memin  engravings. 

Her  second  likeness  was  made  many  years  later.  It  occurs  in  the  shape  of  a  large  litho- 
graph, which  should  by  common  practice,  be  a  copy  of  an  oil  painting,  but  if  such  a  painting 
ever  existed,  I  have  never  heard  of  it.  This  lithograph  was  made  in  Paris,  in  1852,  just  before 
she  went  to  Rome  and  sat  for  the  large  picture  next  to  be  considered.  At  the  bottom  of  the 
lithograph  is  printed:  Madam,  Widow  of  the  Late  Aaron  Burr  Vice  President  of  the  United 
States,  formerly  Madam  Jumel.  And  it  is  said  that  the  copy  in  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale, 
Paris,  is  further  inscribed  after  this  title  with  the  words,  the  Heroine  of  New  York.  This  lauda- 
tion she  had  the  intelligence  to  remove  from  the  prints  that  were  circulated  in  the  United 
States. 

This  second  likeness  is  a  shameless  idealization.  If  there  ever  was  a  dissemblance  to  real 
life  it  is  here.  The  house  devil  appears  the  street  angel.  If  the  statement  made  in  her  obituary 
is  correct,  that  she  was  born  in  1769,  she  was  eighty-three  years  of  age  when  this  lithograph 
was  made,  a  statement  belied  by  her  personal  appearance  and  the  fact  that  octogenarians 
were  little  likely  to  travel  to  Europe  in  days  when  the  facilities  were  much  limited.  If  she  were 
in  her  ninety-second  year,  when  she  died  in  1865,  she  still  would  be  aged  seventy-eight  at  the 
date  of  the  production  of  the  lithograph.  Setting  aside  these  unsatisfying  dates,  it  would  be 
safe  to  venture  that  Madam  Jumel  was  then  about  seventy  years  of  age.  She  sits  in  an  arm 
chair,  full  face,  knee-length,  richly  gowned,  both  hands  displayed,  and  a  lace  veil  covering  her 
head  and  falling  off  both  shoulders  to  below  her  waist.  Her  head  is  slightly  inclined  to  the  left 
and  she  radiates  sanctity.  The  spirit  of  resignation,  meekness  and  gentleness  possesses  her. 
Placidity  is  outdone,  and  she  is  prepared  to  meet  her  Heavenly  Father  self-satisfied  with  a  life 
of  good  deeds.  Perhaps  Jezebel  had  repented ! 

Two  years  later  she  had  painted  her  third  likeness,  the  excessively  large  portrait  of  her- 
self, with  two  children,  which  now  hangs  in  the  entrance  hall  of  the  Jumel  House.  It  bears  the 
label:  Portrait  of  Madame  Jumel,  William  Inglis  Chase  and  Eliza  Jumel  Chase  (the  late  Mrs. 
Caryl).  By  Alcide  de  Ercole.  Rome  1854.  Gift  of  Louis  V.  Bell.  As  this  painting  has  some 
merit,  is  accessible  to  the  public  and  will  be  reproduced  in  Mr.  Shelton's  work,  no  further 
allusion  is  made  to  it  here. 

Still  another,  a  fourth,  portrait  of  Madame  Jumel  exists.  Whether  the  painting  should  pre- 
cede or  follow  the  last  two  described  is  problematical.  It  is  a  small  cabinet  painting  by  the 

i  72  > 


American  artist  Henry  Inman.  It  lacks  the  grace  and  elegance  of  the  two  European  paintings, 
but  possesses  a  sincerity  which  is  convincing  of  its  truthfulness  as  a  likeness.  It  conforms  to 
our  knowledge  of  the  woman  and  the  epoch  in  which  she  lived.  She  is  painted  as  a  rather 
homely  old  soul,  with  a  sly,  argumentative,  self-satisfied  expression.  Her  medium-sized  cap 
liberates,  on  either  side,  two  masses  of  long  curly  hair  which  covers  her  ears,  and  contracts  the 
width  of  her  face.  With  little  imagination  you  could  believe  her  blear-eyed.  C  ertainly  she  does 
not  look  lovable.  She  wears  a  black  dress  with  a  lace  fichu,  and  is  seated  in  an  arm  chair.  Her 
two  hands  are  displayed,  and  in  the  right  she  holds  a  letter  signed  Henry  Inman;  a  method  of 
signing  he  commonly  employed.  The  picture  is  in  the  collection  of  Dr.  George  L.  Laporte,  of 
129  East  91st  Street,  New  York  City,  where  I  saw  it  April  6th,  1923,  and  when  he  kindly  fur- 
nished me  with  its  history:  Stephen  Burr  baptized  October  3,  1698,  of  Redding,  Connecticut, 
and  the  Reverend  Aaron  Burr,  born  January  4th,  1716,  were  sons  of  Daniel  Burr.  Stephen 
Burr  had  a  daughter  Rebecca  Burr,  who  married  Seth  Sanford,  of  Redding,  Connecticut, 
while  the  Reverend  Aaron  Burr,  (Stephen's  brother),  became  the  father  of  Colonel  Aaron 
Burr.  To  Ebenezer  Sanford,  the  son  of  his  first  cousin  Rebecca  Burr  Sanford,  Colonel  Aaron 
Burr  gave  this  portrait  of  Madam  Jumel.  Under  what  circumstances  it  was  presented  is 
unknown. 

This  Ebenezer  Sanford,  who  acquired  the  painting  from  Colonel  Burr,  had  a  great-grand- 
daughter Elizabeth  Noyes,  who  sold  the  portrait,  directly  to  Dr.  Laporte,  with  the  preceding 
history. 


i  73  } 


Obituary 


Madam  Eliza  B.  Jumel 

New  York  Times,  July  18,  1865 


mzmm 


SINGLE  sentence  in  this  morning's  Times  serves  to  awaken  many  memories 
of  the  past,  and  revive  remembrances  of  men  and  parties  long  since  crumbled 
or  forgotten.  Thus  it  reads:  "Died,  on  Sunday  morning,  July  16,  at  her  late 
residence,  Washington  Heights,  Madam  Eliza  B.  Jumel,  in  the  92d  year  of 
her  age." 

Madam  Jumel,  whose  death  is  chronicled  above,  was  a  very  singular  person,  about  whose 
name  twined  many  marvelous  stories,  and  with  whose  history  the  greatest  men  of  colonial  and 
Revolutionary  days  were  intimately  connected.  According  to  one  historian,  she  was  born  of 
an  English  mother,  Mrs.  Capet,  in  the  cabin  of  a  French  frigate,  which  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
1769,  was  carrying  troops  to  the  West  Indies  from  La  Brest.  The  mother  died  as  the  child 
drew  the  first  breath  of  life.  Somewhat  embarrassed  by  the  tender  charge,  the  Captain  con- 
cluded to  keep  her,  but  afterward  when  driven  into  Newport,  R.  I.,  harbor,  he  placed  her  in 
the  custody  of  an  elderly  lady  named  Thompson  who  agreed  to  take  good  care  of  her.  Mrs. 
Thompson  was  a  good  woman,  and  many  clergymen  visited  her  comparatively  humble  dwell- 
ing, so  that  the  early  years  of  the  little  one  were  passed  amid  good  influence. 

Many  of  His  Britannic  Majesty's  officers  dwelt  in  Newport.  Among  them  was  a  certain 
Col.  P.  Croix,  whose  personal  appearance  is  reported  to  have  been  most  taking — whose  posi- 
tion in  society  was  excellent.  The  Colonel  met  Miss  Capet  when  she  was  about  seventeen 
years  of  age,  and  fell  in  love  with  her  pretty  face  and  pleasant  figure.  She  reciprocated  the 
tender  passion,  which  eventuated  in  an  elopement,  the  indiscreet  but  entirely  happy  pair  pro- 
ceeding to  New  York,  where  the  lady  lodged  at  a  "handsome  wooden  structure,"  but  recently 
standing  where  now  rests  the  north  wing  of  Stewart's  marble  palace. 

Brought  at  once  into  contact  with  the  best  people  in  the  city,  the  lady  became  a  cultured 
woman  of  the  world,  fond  of  its  pleasures,  versed  in  its  intrigues,  interested  in  the  cabals  of 
politicians,  and  espousing  with  ardor  one  side  or  the  other  of  the  continual  military  emeutes 
with  which  the  latter  days  of  the  eighteenth  century  were  so  cursed  in  New  York  City.  She 
was  present  at  the  opening  of  the  first  session  of  Congress  at  Philadelphia;  in  September, 
1774,  and  at  the  inauguration  of  Washington  as  President,  she  created  a  decided  impression 
by  her  beauty  and  general  air  of  savoir  faire.  She  was  about  twenty  years  of  age  then,  and  very 
elegant  in  person  and  distinguished  in  bearing.  Mme.  Jumel  first  met  Aaron  Burr  when  he 
ranked  as  a  Captain  in  the  army,  and  was  greatly  impressed  with  his  power  and  expression. 
She  was  even  then  intimate  with  Benedict  Arnold,  whose  wife  she  fancied  her  best  friend,  and 
with  Patrick  Henry,  in  whose  breast  of  reserve  she  started  a  dangerous  fire  of  love  and  pas- 
sion ;  but  forgetful  of  those  noted  men,  and  of  the  scores  who  bent  willingly  before  her  shrine, 


{  74  } 


she  wrote  thus  of  the  man  who,  in  after  years,  was  destined  to  be  her  lord,  if  not  her  master. 
She  says: 

"Capt.  Aaron  Burr,  in  the  hey-day  of  his  youth,  as  he  now  was,  appeared  to  me  the  per- 
fection of  manhood  personified.  He  was  beneath  the  common  size  of  men,  only  five  feet  and  a 
half  high,  but  his  figure  and  form  had  been  fashioned  in  the  models  of  the  graces.  Petite  as  he 
comparatively  was,  he  had  a  martial  appearance,  and  displayed  in  all  his  movements  those 
accomplishments  which  are  only  acquired  in  the  camp  and  embellished  in  the  boudoir  of  the 
graces.  In  a  word,  he  was  a  combined  model  of  Mars  and  Apollo.  His  eye  was  of  the  deepest 
black,  and  sparkled  with  an  incomprehensible  brilliancy  when  he  smiled ;  but  if  enraged,  its 
power  was  absolutely  terrific."  Into  whatever  female  society  he  chanced,  by  the  fortune  of 
war  or  the  vicissitudes  of  private  life  to  be  cast,  he  conquered  all  hearts  without  an  effort;  and, 
until  he  became  deeply  involved  in  the  cares  of  State,  and  the  vexations  incident  to  the  politi- 
cal arena,  I  do  not  believe  a  female  capable  of  the  gentle  emotions  of  love  ever  looked  upon 
him  without  loving  him.  Wherever  he  went  he  was  petted  and  caressed  by  our  sex,  and  hun- 
dreds vied  with  each  other  in  a  continuous  struggle  to  offer  him  some  testimonial  of  their 
adulation.  And  yet,  with  all  this  popularity  in  the  polite  circles,  he  never  took  advantage  of 
his  position,  and  I  do  not  believe  that  any  female  ever  had  cause  to  complain  of  his  seductive 
wiles,  perfidy  or  injustice. 

The  casual  meeting  between  the  two  took  place  at  the  rooms  of  Lady  Stirling,  and  re- 
sulted in  Miss  Capet's  acceptance  of  an  invitation  to  accompany  Capt.  Burr  that  evening  to 
the  theatre.  On  the  way  to  the  house,  Burr  asked  permission  to  stop  for  a  friend,  and  so  doing 
he  brought  into  the  carriage  and  introduced  to  Miss  Capet  as  his  friend  the  afterward  cele- 
brated Margaret  Moncrief.  A  desperate  flirtation  followed,  but  beyond  that  nothing  of  any 
moment  occurred  between  them,  and  he  soon  after  was  called  away,  so  that  for  years  they  did 
not  meet. 

Continuing  her  gay  career,  Miss  Capet  met  and  knew  intimately  the  great  leaders  of  the 
Revolutionary  struggle :  Thomas  Jefferson  was  a  frequent  visitor  at  her  house,  and  a  friend- 
ship formed  between  them  which  ceased  only  with  his  death,  in  1826.  Old  Ben  Franklin  called 
her  his  "Fairy  Queen,"  and  was  on  terms  of  such  intimacy  with  her  as  permitted  him  to  salute 
her  hps  in  the  presence  of  friends.  Gen.  Knox  was  likewise  a  worshipper  before  her,  and  La- 
fayette was  greatly  charmed.  That  such  a  woman  as  this  should  have  gone  through  escapades 
and  adventures  is  but  natural;  that  she  should  take  pleasure  and  pride  in  bringing  men  of  the 
loftiest  position  to  her  feet  is  quite  understandable;  that  her  reputation  should  materially 
suffer  by  the  scandal  of  her  rivals  and  the  jealous  tattlings  of  her  female  friends  is  what  one 
would  expect;  but  that  she  should  finally  accept  the  hand  of,  and  marry,  a  quiet,  hard-work- 
ing, adventurous  trader,  is  a  vagary  difficult  of  explanation.  She  did  it,  however.  In  the  early 
days  of  this  century  she  was  wooed  and  won  by  a  Frenchman  named  Stephen  Jumel,  who 
landing  here  poor,  made  an  immense  fortune  in  the  wine  trade.  He  became  noted  for  his 
wealth,  liberality  and  kind-hearted  benevolence,  and  singular  foresight  in  business  matters. 
Of  him  our  worthy  but  eccentric  fellow-citizen,  Grant  Thorburn,  said : 

"Stephen  Jumel,  a  Frenchman,  was  among  our  early  merchant  princes.  One  morning, 
about  10  o'clock,  in  the  year  1806,  this  gentleman,  in  company  with  William  Bayard,  Harmon 


{  75  > 


LeRoy,  Archibald  Gracie,  Gen.  Clarkson,  and  some  dozen  others,  was  reading  and  discussing 
the  news  just  received  from  Liverpool  in  the  extraordinary  short  passage  of  seven  weeks.  The 
matter  mostly  concerned  Napoleon  I  and  the  battle  of  Wagram.  While  thus  engaged,  a  car- 
man's horse  backed  his  cart  into  the  Whitehall  slip.  The  cart  was  got  out,  but  the  horse  was 
drowned,  and  every  one  began  pitying  the  poor  carman's  ill-luck.  Jumel  instantly  arose,  and 
placing  a  ten-dollar  bill  between  his  thumb  and  finger,  and  holding  it  aloft  while  it  fluttered 
in  the  breeze,  and  with  his  hat  in  the  other  hand  he  walked  through  the  length  and  breadth  of 
the  crowd,  exclaiming  'How  much  you  pity  the  poor  man?  I  pity  him  ten  dollars.  How  much 
you  pity  him?'  By  this  ingenious  and  noble  coup  he  collected  in  a  few  moments  about  seventy 
dollars,  which  he  gave  over  at  once  to  the  unfortunate  and  fortunate  carman.  This  has  since 
been  imitated  often,  but  of  its  originality  with  him  there  can  be  no  question." 

Shortly  after  this  marriage,  the  downfall  of  the  great  Napoleon  occurred,  and  the  paci- 
fication of  Europe  was  secured.  This  seemed  a  favourable  opportunity  for  the  wealthy  French- 
man, who  had  long  since  retired  from  active  business,  to  take  his  beautiful  and  accomplished 
wife  to  the  centre  of  continental  splendor.  They  went  to  Paris,  purchased  a  magnificent  estab- 
lishment, and  under  the  social  patronage  of  Lafayette  and  his  contemporaries,  Madame  Jumel 
became  as  noted  in  the  sabns  of  the  French  capital  as  in  the  parlors  of  the  western  metropolis. 
Her  wit  and  talent  placed  her  in  the  very  van  of  the  frequenters  of  the  court,  and  while  she 
never  failed  to  make  continual  conquests,  we  are  not  of  those  who  believe  the  slanderers  of  her 
reputation.  Gaiety  is  not  always  quiet,  frivolity  not  always  the  exponent  of  heartlessness,  and 
despite  Madame  Jumel's  wonderful  gaiety  and  never-ceasing  frivolity,  she  was  deep  and 
shrewd  and  able  enough  to  maintain  her  position  against  the  combined  attacks  of  those  who 
envied  her. 

Her  fife  of  prodigious  prodigality  made  sad  inroads  upon  her  husband's  fortune,  and  he 
became  low  spirited.  She  rallied  him,  but  investigation  demonstrated  the  comparative  wreck 
of  his  estate,  and  she  failed  to  arouse  him  to  the  necessary  exertion.  Self  reliant,  bold,  inde- 
pendent and  clear  sighted,  she  broke  up  their  establishment  in  Paris,  and  returned  alone  to 
New  York  in  1822.  Resolved  to  mend  what  she  had  broken,  she  retired  to  an  estate  of  her  own 
on  the  island,  and  devoted  herself  to  the  recuperation  of  her  husband's  fortune  with  such  sig- 
nal success  that  when,  in  1828,  at  the  age  of  sixty-four,  he  returned  to  this  country,  he  found 
himself  possessed  of  means  at  once  abundant  and  satisfactory.  They  lived  happily  together 
until  his  death,  which  resulted  in  his  seventieth  year,  from  an  accidental  fall. 

At  this  time,  Col.  Burr  was  practicing  law,  with  great  success,  in  New  York.  His  legal 
position  was  in  the  front  rank;  triumph  succeeded  triumph  and  although  old  in  years,  he 
seemed  but  in  the  prime  of  life.  There  was  talk  of  cholera  in  the  city,  and  Madame  Jumel,  who 
had  large  interests  in  real  estate  determined  upon  a  carriage  tour  in  the  country.  Desiring, 
however,  to  take  legal  advice  in  some  matters  before  leaving,  she  determined  to  consult  Col. 
Burr,  whose  preeminence  in  real  estate  law  was  universally  conceded.  It  was  a  long  time  since 
she  had  seen  him.  Years  had  changed  them  both;  oceans  and  events  had  separated  them; 
marriage  and  its  consequences  had  turned  the  thoughts  of  each  in  other  directions ;  and  now, 
when  the  one  was  an  old  man  and  the  other  a  well  advanced  woman,  they  were  to  meet.  He 
was  perfect  in  all  the  subtleties  of  social  fife;  she  was  the  exponent,  ne  plus  ultra,  of  fashionable 


{  76  > 


life.  The  one  could  not  hope  to  blind,  mislead,  or  seduce  the  other.  His  office  was  at  No.  23 
Nassau  street,  and  she  drove  thither  to  consult  him.  Never  forgetful  of  eye,  or  feature,  or 
figure,  he  recognized  her  in  a  moment,  and,  as  Parton  in  his  Life  of  Aaron  Burr,  says: 

"He  received  her  in  his  courtliest  manner,  complimented  her  with  admirable  tact,  listened 
with  soft  deference  to  her  statement.  He  was  the  ideal  man  of  business — confidential,  self- 
possessed,  polite — giving  his  client  the  flattering  impression  that  the  faculties  of  his  whole  soul 
were  concentrated  upon  the  affair  in  hand.  She  was  charmed,  yet  feared  him.  He  took  the 
papers,  named  the  day  when  his  opinion  would  be  ready  and  handed  her  to  her  carriage  with 
winning  grace.  At  seventy-eight  years  of  age  he  was  still  straight,  active,  agile,  fascinating. 

On  the  appointed  day  she  sent  to  his  office  a  relative,  a  student  of  law,  to  receive  his  opin- 
ion. This  young  gentleman,  timid  and  inexperienced,  had  an  immense  opinion  of  Burr's  tal- 
ents; had  heard  all  good  and  all  evil  of  him;  supposed  him  to  be,  at  least,  the  acutest  of  possible 
men.  He  went.  Burr  behaved  to  him  in  a  manner  so  exquisitely  pleasing,  that,  to  this  hour,  he 
has  the  liveliest  recollection  of  the  scene.  No  topic  was  introduced  but  such  as  were  familiar 
and  interesting  to  young  men.  His  manners  were  such  as  this  age  of  slangy  familiarity  cannot 
so  much  as  imagine.  The  young  gentleman  went  home  to  Madame  Jumel  only  to  extol  and 
glorify  him. 

Madame  and  her  party  began  their  journey,  revisiting  Ballston,  whither,  in  former  times, 
she  had  been  wont  to  go  in  a  chariot  drawn  by  eight  horses;  visiting  Saratoga,  then  in  the  be- 
ginning of  its  celebrity,  where,  in  exactly  ten  minutes  after  her  arrival,  the  decisive  lady 
bought  a  house  and  all  it  contained.  Returning  to  New  York  to  find  that  her  mansion  had  been 
despoiled  by  robbers  in  her  absence.  She  lived  for  a  while  in  the  city.  Col.  Burr  called  upon  the 
young  gentleman  who  had  been  Madame's  messenger,  and  after  their  acquaintance  had  rip- 
ened, said  to  him:  "Come  into  my  office;  I  can  teach  you  more  in  one  year  than  you  can  learn 
in  ten,  in  an  ordinary  way."  The  proposition  being  submitted  to  Madame  Jumel,  she,  anxious 
for  the  young  man's  advancement  gladly  and  gratefully  consented.  He  entered  the  office. 
Burr  kept  him  close  at  his  books.  He  did,  teach  him  more  in  a  year  than  he  could  have  learned 
in  ten  in  an  ordinary  way.  Burr  lived  then  in  Jersey  City.  His  office  swarmed  with  applicants 
for  aid,  and  he  seemed  to  have  quite  lost  the  power  of  refusing.  In  no  other  respects,  bodily  or 
mental,  did  he  exhibit  signs  of  decrepitude. 

Some  months  passed  on  without  his  again  meeting  Madame  Jumel.  At  the  suggestion  of 
the  student,  who  felt  exceedingly  grateful  to  Burr  for  the  solicitude  with  which  he  assisted  his 
studies,  Madame  Jumel  invited  Col.  Burr  to  dinner.  It  was  a  grand  banquet,  at  which  he  dis- 
played all  the  charms  of  his  manner  and  shone  to  conspicuous  advantage.  On  handing  to 
dinner  the  giver  of  the  feast,  he  said:  "I  give  you  my  hand,  Madame:  my  heart  has  long  been 
yours."  This  was  supposed  to  be  merely  a  compliment  and  was  little  remarked  at  the  time. 
Col.  Burr  called  upon  the  lady :  called  frequently ;  became  ever  warmer  in  his  attentions ;  pro- 
posed, at  length,  and  was  refused.  He  still  plied  his  suit,  however,  and  obtained  at  last,  not  the 
lady's  consent,  but  an  undecided  no.  Improving  his  advantage  on  the  instant,  he  said,  in  a 
jocular  manner,  that  he  should  bring  out  a  clergyman  to  Fort  Washington  on  a  certain  day, 
and  there  he  would  once  more  solicit  her  hand. 

He  was  as  good  as  his  word.  At  the  time  appointed,  he  drove  out  in  his  gig  to  the  lady's 


i  77  > 


country  residence,  accompanied  by  Dr.  Bogart,  the  very  clergyman  who,  just  fifty  years  be- 
fore, had  married  him  to  the  mother  of  his  Theodosia.  The  lady  was  embarrassed,  and  still 
refused.  But  then  the  scandal!  And,  after  all,  why  not?  Her  estate  needed  a  vigilant  guardian, 
and  the  old  house  was  lonely.  After  much  hesitation,  she  at  length  consented  to  be  dressed  and 
to  receive  her  visitors.  And  she  was  married.  The  ceremony  was  witnessed  only  by  the  mem- 
bers of  Madame  Jumel's  family  and  by  the  eight  servants  of  the  household,  who  peered 
eagerly  in  at  the  doors  and  windows.  The  ceremony  over,  Mrs.  Burr  ordered  supper.  Some 
bins  of  M.  Jumel's  wine  cellar,  that  had  not  been  opened  for  half  a  century,  were  laid  under 
contribution.  The  little  party  was  a  very  merry  one.  The  parson,  in  particular,  it  is  remem- 
bered, was  in  the  highest  spirits,  overflowing  with  humor  and  anecdote.  Except  for  Col.  Burr's 
great  age  (which  was  not  apparent)  the  match  seemed  not  an  unwise  one.  The  lurking  fear  he 
had  of  being  a  poor  and  homeless  old  man  was  put  to  rest.  She  had  a  companion  who  had  been 
ever  agreeable  and  her  estate  a  steward  than  whom  no  one  living  was  supposed  to  be  more 
competent. 

As  a  remarkable  circumstance  connected  with  this  marriage,  it  may  be  just  mentioned 
that  there  was  a  woman  in  New  York  who  had  aspired  to  the  hand  of  Col.  Burr,  and  who, 
when  she  heard  of  his  union  with  another,  wrung  her  hands  and  shed  tears.  A  feeling  of  that 
nature  can  seldom,  since  the  creation  of  man,  have  been  excited  by  the  marriage  of  a  man  on 
the  verge  of  fourscore. 

A  few  days  after  the  wedding,  the  happy  pair  paid  a  visit  to  Connecticut,  of  which  State 
a  nephew  of  Col.  Burr's  was  then  Governor.  They  were  received  with  attention.  At  Hartford, 
Burr  advised  his  wife  to  sell  out  her  shares  in  the  bridge  over  the  Connecticut  at  that  place  and 
invest  the  proceeds  in  real  estate.  She  ordered  them  sold.  The  stock  was  in  demand  and  the 
shares  brought  several  thousand  dollars.  The  purchaser  offered  to  pay  her  the  money,  but  she 
said,  "No;  pay  it  to  my  husband."  To  him,  accordingly  it  was  paid,  and  he  had  it  sewed  up  in 
his  pocket,  a  prodigious  bulk,  and  brought  it  to  New  York  and  deposited  it  in  his  own  bank  to 
his  own  credit. 

Texas  was  then  beginning  to  attract  the  tide  of  immigration,  which,  a  few  years  later,  set 
so  strongly  thither.  Burr  had  always  taken  a  great  interest  in  that  country.  Persons  with 
whom  he  had  been  variously  connected  in  life  had  a  scheme  on  foot  for  settling  a  large  colony 
of  Germans  on  a  tract  of  land  in  Texas.  A  brig  had  been  chartered  and  the  project  was  in  a 
state  of  forwardness,  when  the  possession  of  a  sum  of  money  enabled  Burr  to  buy  shares  in  the 
enterprise.  The  greater  part  of  the  money  which  he  had  brought  from  Hartford  was  invested 
in  this  way.  It  proved  a  total  loss.  The  time  had  noty  et  come  for  immigration  to  Texas.  The 
Germans  became  discouraged  and  separated,  and,  to  complete  the  failure  of  the  scheme,  the 
title  of  the  lands,  in  the  confusion  of  the  times,  proved  defective.  Meanwhile,  Madame,  who 
was  a  remarkable  thrifty  woman,  with  a  talent  for  the  management  of  property,  wondered 
that  her  husband  made  no  allusion  to  the  subject  of  the  investment,  for  the  Texas  speculation 
had  not  been  mentioned  to  her.  She  caused  him  to  be  questioned  on  the  subject.  He  begged  to 
intimate  to  the  lady's  messenger  that  it  was  no  affair  of  hers  and  he  requested  him  to  remind 
the  lady  that  she  now  had  a  husband  to  manage  her  affairs  and  one  who  would  manage  them. 

Coolness  between  the  husband  and  wife  was  the  result  of  this  colloquy,  then  came  remon- 


i  78  } 


strances.  Then  estrangement.  Burr  got  into  the  habit  of  remaining  in  his  office  in  the  city. 
Then,  partial  reconciliation.  Full  of  schemes  and  speculations  to  the  last,  without  retaining 
any  of  his  former  ability  to  act  successful,  he  lost  more  money,  and  more,  and  more.  The 
patience  of  the  lady  was  exhausted.  She  filed  a  complaint  accusing  him  of  infidelity  and  pray- 
ing that  he  might  have  no  more  control  or  authority  over  her  affairs.  The  accusation  is  now 
known  to  have  been  groundless;  nor  indeed,  at  the  time  was  it  seriously  believed.  It  was  used 
merely  as  the  most  convenient  legal  mode  of  depriving  him  of  control  over  her  property.  At 
first  he  answered  the  complaint  vigorously,  but  afterward  he  allowed  it  to  go  by  default  and 
the  proceedings  were  carried  no  further.  A  few  short  weeks  of  happiness,  followed  by  a  few 
alternate  months  of  alternate  estrangement  and  reconciliation,  and  this  union,  that  begun  not 
inauspiciously,  was,  in  effect,  though  never  in  law,  dissolved. 

Since  then  Madame  Jumel,  who  has  never  resumed  her  late  husband's  name,  has  resided 
in  her  home  at  Washington  Heights,  comparatively  alone.  She  knew  but  few,  and  cared  not  to 
extend  her  list  of  friends.  She  died  on  Sunday,  possessed  of  considerable  property  which  her 
grandchildren  will  doubtless  inherit.  Her  funeral  will  be  today." 

W.  L.  Andrews  had  thirty  copies  of  this  obituary  reprinted  in  a  brochure  of  sixteen  pages 
with  a  frontispiece  of  Madame  Jumel.  One  of  the  copies  he  gave  to  the  New  York  Historical 
Society.  Taken  in  its  entirety  it  is  a  colossal  distortion  of  fact  and  an  assemblage  of  historical 
lies. 


i  79  } 


The  Blennerhasset  Miniatures 


ARM  AN  BLENNERHASSETT  descended  from  the  English  nobility  through 
a  long  line  of  ancestors,  one  of  whom,  during  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth, 
settled  in  Ireland  and  became  his  direct  progenitor.  In  1796,  he  married  Mar- 
garet, daughter  of  Capt.  Robert  Agnew,  of  County  Durham,  England,  lieut- 
governor  of  the  Isle  of  Man,  the  son  of  General  James  Agnew,  of  Revolution- 
ary fame.  The  bride  was  eighteen,  the  groom  was  thirty-one.  Her  mother,  Catharine  Agnew, 
was  this  Harman  Blennerhassett's  own  sister,  and  she,  the  bride,  thus  became  his  own  blood 
niece.  The  alliance  was  discountenanced  by  the  family  and  she  was  disinherited,  while  the 
blame  was  laid  largely  to  the  man's  door,  because  of  his  greater  age.  He  disposed  of  his  estates 
for  $160,000,  but  there  still  remained,  secured  to  himself  and  wife,  other  small  revenue  pro- 
ducing properties.  Blennerhassett  and  his  wife  then  turned  to  America  where  they  landed 
Aug.  1,  1796,  and  where  shortly  they  bought  the  island  in  the  Ohio  River  which  bears  their 
name,  and  upon  which  was  erected  a  mansion,  all  calling  for  a  disbursement  of  about  $60,000. 
This  was  occupied  by  the  Blennerhassetts  for  some  years.  Thence  they  moved  to  a  thousand 
acre  plantation  on  the  Mississippi,  adjacent  to  Port  Gibson,  where  they  dwelt  twelve  years, 
and  then  again  onwards  to  Montreal.  In  1821,  he  returned  to  England,  hoping  to  reestablish 
himself  in  good  name  and  fortune.  In  1824,  he  assembled  his  family  about  him  in  England,  where 
after  ten  years  of  disappointment,  he  died,  Feb.  2, 1831,  at  Port  Pierre,  Isle  of  Guernsey,  in  his 
sixty-sixth  year.  His  wife  returned  to  America  in  1840,  and  died,  at  her  own  residence,  75 
Greenwich  Street,  New  York  City,  June  16,  1842,  in  her  sixty-fourth  year.  The  Blennerhas- 
setts had  two  daughters  who  died  in  childhood,  an  eldest  son  Dominick,  a  degenerate,  a  sec- 
ond son,  Harman,  of  the  same  type  as  Dominick,  and  a  youngest  son,  Joseph  Lewis  Blenner- 
hassett, who,  with  his  wife,  followed  his  mother  to  this  country  in  1841,  and  who  was  a  gentle- 
man, a  lawyer,  a  linguist,  a  peripatetic  school  teacher,  and  whose  life  ended  in  dissipation,  in 
Missouri,  Dec.  8,  1862.  His  two  small  sons  predeceased  him,  and  with  him  this  line  of  the 
Blennerhassetts  became  extinct. 

The  names  of  Aaron  Burr  and  Harman  Blennerhassett  are  interwoven  in  a  tale  of  great 
misfortune.  Disaster  followed  their  acquaintance.  The  peace  and  prosperity  which  was  Blen- 
nerhassett's gave  way  to  unhappiness  and  ruin.  Burr  was  the  hypnotist ;  Blennerhassett  the 
subject.  When  one  fell,  the  other  succumbed  and  a  life  of  disappointment  followed  both.  Blen- 
nerhassett's career  might  still  have  been  one  of  suffering,  even  if  Burr  had  failed  to  cross  his 
path,  for  the  ostracism  that  followed  his  marriage  and  a  progeny  that  sank  to  so  low  a  level 
would  naturally  entail  much  unhappiness.  That  it  was  accentuated  by  the  failure  of  Burr's 
ambitious  plans  there  can  be  no  doubt.  The  details  of  it,  however,  belong  to  the  historian — 
with  the  portraits  we  are  alone  interested. 

In  September,  1885,  I  was  in  attendance  upon  George  Morton,  Esq.,  of  46  West  127th 
Street,  New  York  City,  a  gentleman  of  historical  and  artistic  attainments,  who  enthusias- 


{  80  > 


Mb.  and  Mrs.  Harman  Blennerhassett 

Dr.  John  E.  Slillwell 


Daguerreotypes 


tically  drew  my  attention  to  his  recent  purchase  of  a  George  Washington  portrait  from  a  dis- 
cussion of  which  we  turned  to  my  hobby,  the  Burr  portraits.  His  daughter,  Mrs.  Benjamin  F. 
McClain  observed  that  while  she  could  add  nothing  to  my  Burr  information,  she  could  con- 
tribute something  concerning  the  Blennerhassetts,  at  the  same  time  showing  me  a  unique  ring 
upon  her  finger  which  came  to  her  under  the  following  circumstances.  Her  husband's  father 
was  Orlando  D.  McClain,  the  owner  of  a  well-known  hardware  shop  at  167  Spring  Street,  New 
York  City,  where  he  also  resided.  He  was  a  man  of  probity  and  benevolence,  and  upon  the 
creation  of  the  Ladies  Home  Missionary  Society,  of  New  York  City,  about  1852,  he  became 
one  of  the  mainstays  of  this  body,  acting  as  its  treasurer,  and  in  various  other  capacities.  Tne 
Society  directed  its  attention  to  the  district  called  The  Five  Points,  a  veritable  sink  of  in- 
iquity according  to  sociologists.  In  one  of  its  tenements  lived  Harman  Blennerhassett,  Jr. ,  in 
rooms  neglected  and  squalid,  and  upon  whose  door  was  a  tin  sign  marked  Harman  Blenner- 
hassett, painter  and  counsellor  at  law.  As  an  artist  his  low  standard  productions  found  a  small 
market  and  some  were  presented  by  him  to  the  McClains;  as  a  lawyer  he  probably  failed  of 
any  clientele.  Mr.  Blennerhassett  reluctantly  accepted  the  attentions  of  the  well  disposed 
ladies,  but  greatly  appreciated  the  kindness  of  Mr.  McClain,  to  whom  he  gave  several  sou- 
venirs, among  them  the  ring  alluded  to.  He  was  taken  ill  and  placed  in  a  hospital,  and  when 
his  end  was  approaching,  he  gave  Mr.  McClain  his  few  possessions,  including  letters  and  fine 
miniatures  of  his  father  and  mother,  each  set  in  pearls,  with  the  request  that  they  be  for- 
warded to  his  only  surviving  relative,  a  brother  living  in  St.  Louis,  Missouri.  Before  Mr. 
McClain  had  time  to  forward  these  effects  to  their  destination,  a  gentleman,  representing 
himself  as  the  author  of  a  projected  History  of  West  Virginia,  called  at  his  house  and  stated 
that  he  was  permitted  by  Mr.  McClain  to  have  the  Blennerhassett  miniatures,  daguerreo- 
typed  for  use  in  his  forthcoming  work.  Mrs.  McClain  unsuspectingly  gave  them  up,  only  to 
learn  on  the  return  of  her  husband,  that  the  demand  was  without  his  knowledge  and  fraudu- 
lent. No  clue  to  the  individual  was  ever  obtained.  Several  years  went  by,  when  a  package  was 
left  at  Mr.  McClain's  house  containing,  not  the  original  miniatures,  but  good  daguerreotypes 
of  the  same.  It  was  simply  left  without  comment.  It  is  from  these  daguerreotypes,  now  in  my 
possession,  that  the  accompanying  reproductions  are  made. 

An  interesting  and  truthful  contribution — The  True  Story  Of  Harman  Blennerhassett, 
By  Therese  Blennerhassett-Adams,  appears  in  the  62nd  volume  of  the  Century  Magazine, 
pp.  351-356,  illustrated  by  the  likeness  of  Harman  Blennerhassett,  owned  by  Dr.  Martin;  and 
in  an  article — A  RomanticWrong-Doer,  by  Edgar  Fawcett,  in  The  Cosmopolitan,  October,  1897, 
appears  a  nearly  identical  likeness  of  Mr.  Blennerhassett,  as  well  as  one  of  his  wife  Mrs.  Blen- 
nerhassett. The  likeness  of  Mr.  Blennerhassett,  now  owned  by  Dr.  Martin,  of  Boston,  Mas- 
sachusetts, and  that  of  Mrs.  Blennerhassett,  whose  owner  is  unknown  to  me,  conform  exactly 
to  the  two  daguerreotypes  in  my  possession.  That  these  miniatures  emanate  directly  from  the 
Blennerhassett  family  and  that  these  daguerreotypes  are  reproductions  thereof,  there  can  be 
no  doubt.  My  reproductions  fail  to  show  the  circle  of  pearls  which  encircle  both  in  the  daguer- 
reotypes. I  append  two  letters  from  Dr.  Martin  which  have  an  intimate  bearing  upon  this 
subject  and  which  are  self  explanatory: 


{  81  } 


Nov.  17, 1901. 

Dr.  Francis  C.  Martin, 

27  Dudley  St.,  Roxbury  Station, 
Boston,  Mass. 
Dear  Sir — 

I  received  your  letter  of  Oct.  19th  safely,  and  you  would  have  heard  from  me  long  ago, 
but  I  have  been  at  my  country  place  all  the  past  seven  weeks,  at  the  bed-side  of  my  only  child, 
who  is  still  critically  ill.  She  is  the  last  of  the  direct  Blennerhassett  blood,  in  this  country.  I 
am,  together  with  Lord  Kinsale,  the  nearest  descendants  (or  rather,  relatives),  of  both  H. 
Blennerhassett  and  his  wife,  Margaret  Agnew,  who  was  his  own  niece.  The  two  miniatures,  of 
H.  B.  and  his  wife,  were  painted  in  London  in  1796.  He  always  wore  his  wife's  and  I  have 
never  been  able  to  find  it,  or  hear  of  it,  before.  She  wore  his,  with  both  their  hair  set  into  the 
back.  I  never  heard  of  Mr.  McClain,  although  that  was  my  grandmother's  maiden  name.  The 
miniature  came  to  me  through  a  cousin  of  H.  B.,  whose  mother  and  father  were  kind  to  his 
last  son,  who,  on  dying  left  them  his  few  family  relics.  These  eventually  came  to  me,  as  the 
proper  heir,  on  my  paying  a  considerable  sum  of  money.  I  wish  you  would  send  me  the  two 
miniatures  (copies)  that  you  have,  by  registered  mail  or  express,  and  permit  me  to  have  a  copy 
photographed  of  Mrs.  H.  B.  I  will  return  your  pictures  intact,  unless  you  are  willing  to  dis- 
pose of  them,  when  I  should  be  thankful  if  you  will  give  me  the  first  chance  to  purchase  them. 
I  will  secure  and  send  you  a  fine  photograph  of  the  miniature  of  H.  B.  There  is  the  best  man 
I  know  of,  for  this  work,  in  Boston,  who  made  a  splendid  photograph  for  the  Century,  and  I  can 
get  a  copy  for  you.  It  seems  evident  that  this  picture,  of  yours,  of  Mrs.  B.  is  a  copy  of  the  real 
miniature  of  her.  I  have  tried  to  find  it  for  many  years,  but  have  supposed  it  must  have  been 
stolen  and  the  gold  and  pearls  sold,  and  the  picture  destroyed.  If  I  can  get  a  photograph  of 
your  picture,  I  can  keep  up  the  search,  and  may  eventually  discover  the  original  somewhere. 
I  care  much  more  for  my  great  aunt,  Mrs.  B.  than  for  H.  B.  and  would  give  a  great  deal  to 
find  her  miniature.  Pictures  of  her  have  been  published  in  magazines,  but  on  trying  to  follow 
up  the  artists,  and  find  out  where  they  got  any  picture  to  copy,  I  could  never  get  any  satis- 
faction, and  made  up  my  mind  they  were  all  "fancy  pictures,"  and  made  up  out  of  the  artists' 
fancy. 

Please  address  me 

Gilmanton  Iron  Works 
N.  Hamp. 

Very  sincerely, 

Francis  C.  Martin. 


{  82  > 


Dr.  Francis  C.  Martin, 

27  Dudley  St.,  Roxbury  Station, 
Boston,  Mass. 


Gilmanton  Iron  Works. 
N.  H.  Nov.  21. 
1901. 


Deai'  Dr. 


I  am  very  much  obliged  to  you  for  the  photographs  you  sent  me,  and  shall  value  them 
very  much.  They  are  fully  as  interesting  to  me,  as  the  daguerreotypes  would  be,  and  I  would 
not  ask  you  to  part  with  those.  I  will  get  you  a  fine  photograph  of  my  miniature  as  soon  as  I 
can  attend  to  it.  Evidently  your  picture  of  H.  B.  is  from  the  miniature,  or  from  a  painting 
taken  from  it.  It  is  turned  the  other  way  (i.  e.  the  head)  and  seems  a  good  deal  rougher  than 
the  original.  Probably  this  is  from  the  early  photograph,  being  so  much  cruder  than  those  of 
today.  You  will  see  at  once  what  I  mean,  when  you  get  the  picture.  I  have  always  been  in- 
formed that  there  were  2  miniatures  (H.  B.  &  Mrs.  B.)  exactly  alike  in  setting,  painted  at  the 
same  time,  and  that  he  wore  Ins  wife's,  and  she  wore  Ins.  Also,  that  when  he  was  arrested  with 
Burr,  and  detained  a  long  time  away  from  home,  that  her  picture  was  stolen  from  him.  That 
he  tried  vainly  to  recover  it,  but  never  did,  and  thought  the  pearls  and  gold  were  sold,  and  the 
picture  destroyed.  I  know  all  about  the  Cosmopolitan  article.  I  wrote  to  the  Editor,  and  he 
referred  me  to  the  artist.  I  did  not  hear  from  him  for  a  long  time,  and  he  said  the  sketches  had 
all  been  returned  to  their  owners,  and  he  knew  nothing  about  the  authenticity  of  Mrs.  B's. 
picture.  Of  course  your  picture,  may  be  an  authentic  portrait  of  Mrs.  B.,  but  from  its  shape, 
I  should  say  it  could  not  be  from  a  companion  miniature,  to  the  one  of  H.  B.  but  must  be  a 
picture  taken  under  some  other  circumstances.  I  am  very  glad  to  have  it,  anyway. 

I  should  be  glad  to  hear  from  you  at  any  time,  and  if  I  am  in  N.  York,  shall  take  great 
pleasure  in  calling  on  you,  and  showing  you  the  miniature,  which  is  the  finest  one,  as  a  work 
of  art,  I  have  ever  seen. 


Very  sincerely  yours, 

Francis  C.  Martin. 


{  83  } 


Portrait  Of  Mary  Woolstonecraft 

By 
Opie 


MONG  Burr's  possessions  was  a  portrait  of  Mary  Woolstonecraft,  the  advocate 
of  female  suffrage.  Colonel  Burr  probably  never  met  this  gifted  woman  but  her 
writings  had  aroused  in  him  and  his  daughter  Theodosia  such  profound  ad- 
miration that  the  latter  sought  a  likeness  of  the  authoress  which  her  impover- 
ished and  indulgent  parent  procured.  Opie,  the  distinguished  artist,  had 
painted  her  in  a  most  satisfactory  manner.  Of  this  portrait  Colonel  Burr  secured  a  copy.  Allu- 
sions are  made  to  it  in  his  diary. 

London,  Nov.  21,  1808.  "This  reminds  me  to  say  that  I  have  seen  the  two  daughters  of 
Mary  Woolstonecraft.  They  are  very  fine  children  (the  eldest  no  longer  a  child,  being  now 
fifteen),  but  scarcely  a  discernable  trace  of  the  mother.  Mr.  Godwin  has  been  seven  or  eight 
years  married  to  a  second  wife;  a  sensible,  amiable  woman  by  whom  he  has  a  son,  a  remark- 
ably fine  boy.  Your  picture  of  Mary  is  finer  than  the  original,  and  he  says  a  better  likeness." 
Letter  of  Aaron  Burr  to  Theodosia  Burr. 

London,  Mch.  29,  1809.  "...  who  painted  my  picture  of  Mary  Woolstonecraft?  I  wish 
to  have  my  daughter's  copied  in  the  same  style."  Letter  of  Aaron  Burr  to  Mrs.  M.  J.  Godwin. 

"William  Godwin  former  husband  of  Mary  Woolstonecraft,  but  now  married  to  the 
widow  Clement." 

The  statement  of  Mrs.  Joshua  Webb  to  Mrs.  Ann  S.  Stephens  set  forth  among  The  Inter- 
views that  her  father  presented  the  copy  of  Opie's  painting  to  Colonel  Burr  is  probably  correct 
and  is  strongly  verified  by  one  of  the  preceding  quotations  from  his  diary. 

The  Woolstonecraft  portrait  reached  America  but  probably  never  reached  Theodosia.  It 
was  owned  by  Colonel  Burr  at  the  date  of  his  decease  but  was  held  by  Mrs.  Webb  who  prac- 
tically sold  it  to  Mrs.  Ann  S.  Stephens,  from  whom  it  passed  to  her  daughter  Ann  S.  Stephens, 
who  in  turn,  in  gratitude  for  his  many  kindnesses,  bequeathed  it  to  Mr.  James  Speyer,  the 
banker  of  New  York  City,  in  whose  possession  it  still  remains,  and  by  whose  courtesy  it  is 
reproduced.  Mrs.  Stephens'  interview  discloses  quite  fully  the  romantic  history  of  Mrs.  Webb, 
and  incidentally  makes  further  allusion  to  the  Godwins  and  Woolstonecrafts. 

That  Burr's  portrait  of  Mary  Woolstonecraft  is  a  fine  copy  by  an  unknown  artist  and  not 
a  replica  of  the  original  by  Opie  is  patent.  Opie  died  April  9,  1807.  Burr  arrived  in  England  in 
the  early  summer  of  1808,  over  a  year  after  the  artist  had  died. 


{  84  } 


Mr.  James  Speyer 


Vanderlyn's  Self  Portrait 


And 
His  Artistry 

OHN  VANDERLYN'S  name  is  reminiscent  of  Burr  portraiture.  The  lives  of 
the  artist  and  statesman  were  interwoven  for  a  considerable  span  and  it  is  by 
the  brush  of  Vanderlyn  that  Burr's  features  are  now  best  preserved  to  us.  Van- 
derlyn's youthful  art  talents  were  fostered  by  Burr  who  discerned  in  him  signs 
of  great  promise  which  time  justified.  Starting  as  Burr's  protege,  and  twenty 
years  his  junior,  he  later  became  his  benefactor's  steadfast,  even  if  at  times  his  somewhat 
querulous,  friend.  Burr  occasionally  requisitioned  his  services  as  a  limner  for  himself,  while  he 
placed  with  him  a  steady  flow  of  orders  for  portraits  of  his  mentally,  physically  and  filially 
perfect  daughter  Theodosia.  Her  appeal  to  the  artist  during  childhood  and  womanhood  must 
have  been  great,  for  he  painted  her  con  amore.  Perhaps  no  more  artistic  and  beautiful  portrait 
was  ever  created  than  the  1802  profile  of  this  rare  creature  by  Vanderlyn,  inspired  through  his 
recent  studies  abroad  in  the  school  of  the  Frenchman,  David.  It  is  doubtful  whether  Burr's 
intimacy  with  Vanderlyn  would  have  ever  ripened  save  from  their  common  devotion  to  tins 
remarkable  woman  who  was  so  unjustly  abandoned  by  fortune.  During  Burr's  exile,  patron 
and  former  protege  were  thrown  much  together,  and  Burr,  with  his  unceasing  restlessness, 
proved  himself  not  a  stimulus  to  Vanderlyn,  but  rather  a  thorn  in  his  flesh.  The  artist  resented 
his  activities  and  Burr  retaliated  by  entries  in  his  diary  sometimes  not  very  flattering.  To  the 
singularly  cheerful  and  optimistic  Burr  the  artist  had  a  temperamental  make-up  and  was  lazy 
and  grouchy.  Burr  was  dictatorial,  dethroned  and  powerless,  and  Vanderlyn,  now  a  monarch 
among  painters,  was  disposed  to  ignore  the  orders  of  his  erstwhile  patron.  No  rupture  ever 
occurred  between  them,  but  years  after,  through  divergent  interests,  they  drifted  apart. 

Jan.  30,  1811,  Paris.  Burr  entered  in  his  diary:  "To  Vanderlyn's,  who  was  just  (near  10 
a.m.)  up,  and  had  not  breakfasted.  He  was  quite  cross  that  I  came  so  early,  though  his  own 
appointment." 

Feb.  11,  1811,  Paris.  "Then  to  Vanderlyn's  by  his  appointment.  He  had  forgotten  the 
appointment;  had  engaged  to  go  out;  and  was  not  very  glad  to  see  me." 

Vanderlyn's  points  of  contact  with  Colonel  Burr  were  numerous.  In  company  with  his 
brother,  the  doctor,  he  came  to  New  York,  in  1792,  where  he  entered  the  employ  of  Thomas 
Barrow,  a  collector  of  art  and  a  dealer  in  artist's  materials.  Here  he  came  in  contact  with  Stu- 
art and  Trumbull  and  studied  art  in  the  school  of  Archibald  Robertson,  a  Scotch  miniaturist, 
until  the  Fall  of  1794,  when  he  returned  to  Kingston  to  practice  his  newly  adopted  profession 
during  the  winter  of  1794-5.  As  he  was  only  nineteen,  he  must  have  been  singularly  talented  if 
he  turned  out  anything  creditable.  In  the  spring  of  1795  he  started  portrait  painting  and  Burr, 


{  85  > 


interested  in  his  welfare,  through  his  copies  of  Stuart's  portraits  of  himself  (Burr)  and  Egbert 
Benson,  paid  his  way  to  Philadelphia  to  study  under  Gilbert  Stuart.  Here  he  resided  with  that 
master  for  ten  months,  when  Stuart  told  him  he  could  teach  him  no  more.  In  the  summer  of 
1796  he  painted  a  portrait  of  Theodosia,  who  had  reached  the  age  of  thirteen  years,  and  one  of 
Gallatin,  and  another  of  Adet,  all  for  Colonel  Burr.  In  the  Fall  of  1796  he  left  for  Europe, 
where  he  studied  until  1801,  when  he  returned  to  the  States.  In  1796,  on  his  arrival  at  Paris, 
he  met  Bartow  Prevost,  Burr's  stepson  "then  Secretary  for  Monroe,"  who  aided  him  in  his 
introductions.  In  1802  he  painted  portraits  of  Colonel  Burr  and  his  daughter  Theodosia.  In 
1803  to  1805,  he  was  in  Paris;  from  1805  to  1807  in  Rome,  where  he  painted  his  celebrated 
Marius;  in  Paris  again  in  1808,  where  he  exhibited  this  painting;  June  3,  1811,  Burr  addressed 
him  in  Paris;  in  1812,  he  painted  his  Adriane;  in  1815,  he  returned  to  the  United  States  and 
met  with  the  antagonism  of  Trumbull,  the  indifference  of  much  of  the  public,  and  friction 
with  individuals.  All  this  so  disturbed  him  and  absorbed  so  much  of  his  time,  that,  with  added 
efforts  to  get  government  recognition,  he  had  little  or  no  time  to  devote  to  Burr,  so  that  they 
grew  apart  as  they  waxed  old.  Burr's  diary  tells  of  their  early  intimacy  and  makes  frequent 
references  to  Theodosia's  portraits  by  his  brush,  and  perhaps  the  few  sheets  of  Vanderlyn's 
Diary,  which  still  exist  in  the  hands  of  Henry  Alloway,  Esq.,  of  Goshen,  New  York,  may  shed 
additional  light  on  this  interesting  friendship  and  the  Burr  portraits  should  they  ever  become 
accessible.  Vanderlyn  died  in  1852,  at  the  age  of  seventy-six  outliving  Aaron  Burr,  his  first 
patron,  some  sixteen  years. 

Though  this  somewhat  minute  statement  of  Vanderlyn's  movements  is  uninteresting,  it 
is  useful  in  determining  the  chronology  of  the  Burr  portraits.  How  many  he  painted  of  the 
father  and  the  daughter  may  never  be  known. 

John  Vanderlyn,  the  artist,  was  a  fine  specimen  of  the  American  race.  He  never  married 
and  it  may  be,  as  has  been  asserted,  that  the  reason  therefor  was  the  failure  of  his  suit  for 
Theodosia  Burr's  affections.  He  was  born  in  Kingston,  N.  Y.,  Oct.  11,  1776,  and  was  only 
seven  years  her  senior.  When,  where  and  under  what  circumstances  his  fine  self-portrait  was 
produced  I  have  no  knowledge,  but  Burr  placed  high  value  upon  it  and  kept  it  with  him  until 
the  last  years  of  his  life.  It  then  passed  to  Mrs.  Joshua  Webb,  a  lady  with  whom  Burr  resided 
and  who  took  a  kindly,  tender  interest  in  his  welfare.  She  was  an  amiable  and  unfortunate 
woman  who,  at  one  time  possessed  great  personal  attractions  and  a  romantic  disposition,  so 
romantic  indeed  that  she  violated  the  conventions  by  marrying  two  gentlemen,  and  living 
with  two  others  ahead  of  the  dissolution  of  her  marriage  bonds.  Poverty  overtook  her,  yet  she 
found  opportunity  and  means  to  befriend  Col.  Burr  until  his  death.  Her  needs  soon  amounted 
to  distress  and  when  that  became  acute,  she  turned  for  succor  to  that  good  soul,  Ann  S. 
Stephens,  the  authoress,  whose  interview  I  give  at  length  further  on.  It  is  not  unlikely  that 
Col.  Burr  presented  Mrs.  Webb  with  this  painting,  but  there  is  an  even  chance  that  it  was 
left  in  her  custody,  and  that  she  realized  the  moral  propriety  of  its  annexation,  in  her  hour  of 
need,  as  lawful  payment  for  services  rendered.  Mrs.  Stephens  rescued  Mrs.  Webb  financially 
on  several  occasions,  who  finally,  either  in  gratitude  or  repayment  of  the  loans,  construe  it  as 
you  will,  gave  her  benefactress  the  Vanderlyn  portrait.  It  was  during  Mrs.  Stephen's  owner- 


{  86  } 


John  Vanderlyn 


Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art,  New  York 


Self  Portrait 


ship  that  I  first  saw  it,  Nov.  14,  1882.  Subsequently  it  was  loaned  to  the  New  York  Metro- 
politan Museum  of  Art,  where  it  was  housed  for  many  years  and  where  it  now  permanently 
hangs  as  a  bequest  from  Miss  Ann  S.  Stephens. 

This  self  portrait  possesses  great  charm  because  of  its  sincerity.  It  is  a  fine,  masterly  ex- 
ample of  very  early  19th  century  American  art,  painted,  I  judge,  between  1811  and  1816, 
when  the  artist  would  have  been  thirty-five  years  old.  There  is  none  of  that  exaggeration  in 
the  pose  so  common  to  self  portraits,  but  to  the  contrary,  it  is  so  restrained  that  it  could  easily 
represent  one  of  the  successful,  sturdy  merchants  of  the  time.  The  features  too  are  rather  a 
surprise,  for  they  do  not  typify  a  temperamental  artist,  but  rather  a  stolid,  unimaginative, 
truthful,  commonplace  man.  The  free  arrangement  of  his  copious  brown  hair,  straggling  on  his 
forehead  and  temples,  and  perhaps  his  loosely  tied  neck  kerchief,  and  his  rather  loud  plaid 
shirt  may  reclaim  him  as  an  artist,  or  at  least  stamp  him  as  something  of  a  dandy.  He  is  shown 
bust  length,  two-thirds  facing  front.  He  possesses  a  straight  nose,  hazel  eyes,  a  clean  shaven 
face,  save  side  whiskers.  His  well  modelled  features  are  painted  in  large  plain  masses  of  color, 
and  the  values  of  the  textiles,  velvet,  linen  and  cloth,  are  of  the  finest  quality.  The  portrait  is 
painted  with  great  care  and  attention  to  detail;  only  one  jarring  note  occurs  (at  least  in  the 
photograph)  in  the  intensity  of  the  left  naso-labial  line  which  apparently  has  been  slurred. 

John  Vanderlyn,  the  artist,  had  a  Dutch  ancestry.  The  progenitor  of  the  family  in  this 
country  was  Pieter  Vanderlyn  who  was  born  in  Holland  and  died  at  an  unknown  date,  prob- 
ably at  Kingston,  N.  Y.  He  married,  first,  in  New  York,  Aug.  8,  1718,  Gerretje  Van  den  Berg 
by  whom  he  had  a  daughter  Elizabeth.  Both  mother  and  daughter  soon  died,  and  he  married, 
second,  at  Kingston,  N.  Y.,  June  20,  1722,  Geertry,  daughter  of  the  Rev.  Petrus  Vas,  by 
whom  he  had  issue:  Nicholas,  baptized,  at  Kingston,  1723;  Peter,  baptized,  at  Albany,  N.  Y., 
1726;  Elizabeth,  baptized,  at  Albany,  1728;  Jacobus,  baptized,  at  Albany,  1730;  Gerardus, 
baptized,  at  Kingston,  N.  Y.,  1734. 

Nicholas  Vanderlyn,  the  son  of  the  forementioned  Pieter  Vanderlyn,  baptized,  at  Kings- 
ton, N.  Y.,  1723,  was  a  dealer  in  oils  and  colors,  an  artist  and  a  Hudson  River  farmer.  He  mar- 
ried twice,  first,  a  Miss  Peck  "from  over  the  River,"  by  whom  he  had  (1)  Dr.  Peter  Vanderlyn; 
(2)  perhaps  a  son  who  moved  to  New  Paltz,  and  (3)  perhaps  a  daughter.  Nicholas  Vanderlyn's 
second  wife  was  Sarah  Tappan  by  whom  he  had  (4)  John  Vanderlyn,  the  artist;  (5)  Gerardus, 
who  died  young;  and  (6)  Nicholas,  who  married  Nelly  Low,  by  whom  he  had  John  Vanderlyn, 
Jr.,  also  an  artist,  and  two  daughters  Sarah  and  Kate,  elderly  spinsters,  living  at  Kingston, 
N.  Y.,  in  1882,  when  I  interviewed  them.  They  did  not  make  a  favorable  impression  upon  me. 
They  were  most  uncertain  and  contradictory  in  their  statements.  The  histories  of  the  paint- 
ings in  their  possession  were  meagre,  hazy  and  generally  unsatisfactory.  To  John  Vanderlyn, 
Sr.,  their  uncle,  they  attributed  a  supposed  portrait  of  Governor  Yates,  a  supposed  portrait  of 
Henry  Inman,  and  a  miniature  of  himself.  To  John  Vanderlyn,  Jr.,  they  attributed  portraits 
of  Nicholas  Vanderlyn  and  his  wife,  Sarah  Tappan,  a  portrait  of  their  son  Nicholas,  and  to  the 
two  family  artists  two  portraits  of  Eliza  Vanderlyn,  daughter  of  this  Nicholas  Vanderlyn,  the 
second,  both  painted  and  finished  one  Sunday  morning,  by  John  Vanderlyn,  Sr.,  and  John 


i  87  } 


Vanderlyn,  Jr.,  in  competition  with  one  another.  Many  of  their  statements  were  palpable 
errors. 

Further  information  concerning  the  Vanderlyns  may  be  found  in  the  Quarterly  Bulletin, 
of  the  New  York  Historical  Society,  for  October,  1921,  in  a  scholarly  article  on  Pieter  Vanderlyn, 
Portrait  Painter,  by  Charles  X.  Harris. 

Though  it  is  a  digression  from  my  original  plan  I  feel,  because  of  the  interwoven  lives  of 
Burr  and  Vanderlyn,  that  there  is  warrant  in  reproducing  some  of  Vanderlyn's  works  to  illus- 
trate his  artistic  progress.  His  boyish  efforts  culminated  about  1796,  and  are  well  shown  in  the 
very  early  portraits  of  Theodosia  Burr.  His  development  thence  on  was  rapid.  In  the  fall  of 
1796,  while  still  markedly  influenced  by  Gilbert  Stuart,  and  upon  the  eve  of  his  departure  for 
Europe,  he  painted  portraits  of  several  of  his  immediate  family.  That  of  his  mother  is  one  of 
great  excellence,  representing  her  as  a  comely,  dignified  old  lady,  seated.  Though  it  is  lightly 
brushed  in  it  is  painted  with  confidence  and  vigor.  Not  quite  so  happily  executed  is  the  por- 
trait of  his  venerable  father,  and  still  less  felicitously  painted  is  the  portrait  of  his  brother 
Nicholas.  After  a  five  years  stay  in  Europe  John  Vanderlyn  returned,  in  1801,  to  America,  a 
ripened  and  skilled  artist.  His  sitters  henceforward  were  artistically  posed  and  correctly 
drawn ;  his  flesh  colors  were  pure  and  true ;  his  paint  was  thinly  applied  and  there  was  practi- 
cally no  impasto.  This  type  of  brushwork  had  been  and  was  to  continue  prevalent  for  some 
years;  it  was  the  approved  fashion  of  the  time  among  the  leading  artists.  Vanderlyn  had  now 
reached  his  zenith.  During  the  few  months  immediately  following  his  return,  in  1801,  he  spent 
his  time  in  his  home  town,  Kingston,  and  it  was  then  that  he  probably  painted  the  two  Bruyn 
boys. 

In  the  Old  Dutch  Churchyard,  Kingston,  New  York,  are  tombstones  carrying  the  follow- 
ing inscriptions : 

Severyn  Bruyn  born  March  25th  1785,  died  Oct.  27,  1856  aged  71  y'rs,  and  Edmund 
Bruyn,  Esq.  born  4^  April  1783,  died  5th  March  1847. 

These  two  portraits  are  most  happily  conceived  and  executed.  The  younger  boy,  cata- 
logued as  Edmund,  in  the  Senate  House  Collection,  Kingston,  (which  I  believe  should  be  called 
Severyn),  is  shown  seated  holding  an  open  book  with  his  figure  rotated  three  quarters  to  the 
left.  His  hair  is  cut  squarely  across  the  forehead,  and  flows  to  his  shoulders  on  the  sides.  He  is 
dressed  in  a  coat  with  a  heavy  lapel  and  a  spotted  vest,  and  wears  a  distinguishing  large  white 
rolling  collar.  It  is  a  charming  portrait  of  a  quiet,  lovable,  pensive  boy  of  about  ten  years, 
thinly  painted,  showing  the  twill  of  the  canvas. 

The  elder  boy  called  Severyn  Bruyn,  (which  I  opine  is  Edmund),  is  a  companion  piece  to 
the  former  and  pictures  a  youth  about  twelve  years  of  age  seated  with  crossed  arms,  leaning 
upon  a  table,  with  an  outstretched  paper  before  him,  dressed  in  the  style  of  the  first  French 
Republic.  He  is  a  manly  young  fellow  with  a  face  reflecting  a  mature,  progressive  and  argu- 
mentative mind.  His  dress  is  similar  to  his  brother's,  save  that  he  wears  a  jabot.  Still  the  paint- 
ing is  thin  and  the  canvas  shows  through.  Shortly  after,  in  1802,  followed  the  fine  profile  por- 
trait of  Colonel  Burr  and  the  extremely  beautiful  portrait  of  Theodosia  Burr.  In  1809  he  com- 
menced to  fluctuate  in  his  technique  as  would  appear  from  a  portrait  of  Colonel  Burr,  owned 


{  88  > 


by  the  New  York  Historical  Society,  if  my  deductions  are  correct  concerning  this  painting.  In 
1811,  as  judged  by  his  portrait  of  Theodosia  Burr  Alston,  and  the  portrait  of  Governor  Tomp- 
kins, he  had  compromised  and  the  twill  of  his  canvas  was  largely  hidden  by  his  paint.  We  may 
now  pass  to  his  last  period.  It  was  probably  slowly  reached  and  continued  until  his  death  in 
1852.  This  period  of  his  work  occasionally,  I  may  even  say  frequently,  lacks  artistic  and  pic- 
torial quality.  His  portraits  henceforth  while  good  likenesses  of  generally  local  celebrities  are 
painted  with  a  heavily  loaded  brush  and  the  paint  lies  flat  and  smooth,  with  seldom  any  im- 
pasto  except  in  the  garments.  Vanderlyn  had  dropped  from  his  eminent  position  to  near  the 
level  of  the  majority.  His  conflicts,  isolation  and  increasing  years  had  dwarfed  his  ambitions 
and  soured  his  disposition.  He  no  longer  painted  for  pleasure  but  for  a  meagre  livelihood.  His 
wing  feathers  had  been  clipped  and,  no  longer  able  to  soar,  he  gave  his  patrons  what  they 
wanted,  what  they  could  understand  and  what  they  could  pay  for.  In  this  category  come  the 
portraits  of  William  Cockburn,  Judge  Sickles  and  Judge  Forsyth,  all  sterling  citizens  and  men 
of  public  affairs,  and  the  very  beautiful  circular  portrait  of  an  unknown  lady  owned  by  Ed- 
ward Coykendall,  Esquire,  of  Kingston,  N.  Y. 

While  Vanderlyn  was  primarily  a  portraitist  he  did  well  with  mythological  and  historical 
subjects,  so  well  indeed  that  it  is  regretable  that  he  did  not  pursue  this  side  of  his  calling  fur- 
ther. The  beauty  of  his  Ariadne  of  Naxos,  painted  in  1812,  may  have  been  equalled  but  surely 
not  surpassed.  The  original  painting  now  hangs  in  the  Pennsylvania  Academy  of  Fine  Arts, 
while  a  variant,  on  a  smaller  scale,  belongs  to  Edward  Coykendall,  Esquire.  The  artist's  neph- 
ew, John  Vanderlyn,  Jr.,  is  sponsor  for  the  statement  that  it  was  painted  from  life  and  that  it 
was  used  by  the  artist  to  create  the  larger  painting.  By  a  comparison  of  photographs  of  the 
two  paintings  the  honors  fall  to  the  work  at  Kingston.  Here  the  subject  is  painted  with  the 
drapery  arranged  to  hide  the  naked  breasts  and  with  variations  in  the  background.  Vander- 
lyn's  Marius  Mourning  Over  The  Ruins  of  Carthage  is  also  a  noteworthy  work.  It  represents 
the  dignified  warrior,  in  a  fine  architectural  setting,  dejected  and  sorrowful.  I  bought  from  the 
Misses  Vanderlyn,  the  artist's  nieces,  in  1882,  an  unfinished  replica  of  this  painting  laid  in 
with  sepia,  with  the  history  that  he  started  it  for  the  City  of  Kingston  but  as  payments  were 
not  forthcoming,  he  declined  to  proceed  with  the  work.  On  the  creation  of  the  Old  Senate 
House  Association,  I  presented  this  unfinished  work  to  them,  and  it  now  possesses  consider- 
able interest,  as  the  original  painting  was  destroyed  in  the  earthquake  which  wrecked  San 
Francisco. 

Vanderlyn  made  still  further  excursions  into  the  domain  of  Art — lie  essayed  painting  re- 
ligious subjects,  but  with  little  success  judged  by  the  unfinished  female  saint  in  the  Museum 
in  the  Old  Senate  House.  Her  features  are  coarse  though  the  pose  and  the  drapery  are  good. 
Evidently  Vanderlyn's  forte  was  not  spirituality.  Another  departure  was  in  the  creation  of 
landscapes.  His  representation  of  Niagara,  done  in  the  winter  of  1802-1803,  provoked  Colonel 
Burr  to  write  Theodosia: — "You  hear  the  roaring  of  the  cataract  when  you  look  at  them." 
Burr  alludes  to  four  of  these  paintings,  which,  like  those  of  Versailles,  now  stored  in  Kingston, 
and  the  property  of  the  Old  Senate  House  Association,  may  have  formed  a  portion  of  the 
panorama  which  he  exhibited  in  New  York  City.  Landscapes  to  Vanderlyn  were,  in  the  main, 
mere  accessories  to  other  paintings. 


{  89  } 


Still  another  digression  exists  in  Vanderlyn's  work — he  is  known  to  have  painted  with 
water  colors.  One  such,  in  Mr.  Coykendall's  possession,  is,  so  far  as  I  am  able  to  ascertain, 
unique  as  the  only  instance  known.  It  represents  an  attractive  woman,  seated  before  a  marble 
pillar  in  a  wooded  landscape,  dressed  in  Empire  costume.  Standing  and  pressing  against  her 
lap  is  a  seven  or  eight  year  old  boy  whose  resemblance  at  once  identifies  him  as  her  son.  Their 
features  are  those  of  Swedes  or  Germans.  The  painting  possesses  merit.  The  ensemble  is  ex- 
cellent, the  portraiture  beautiful,  the  garments  fine  except  the  mother's  mantel  which  is  exe- 
crable. The  work  is  Vanderlyn's  beyond  dubiety,  for  it  is  signed  and  dated:  J.  Vanderlyn — 
Augt.  1800.  Drawings  from  his  pen  and  brush  are  not  infrequent.  Lastly,  though  the  knowl- 
edge of  it  is  now  largely  forgotten,  Vanderlyn  copied  the  Gilbert  Stuart  portraits  of  Washing- 
ton and  his  wife,  now  owned  by  Edward  Coykendall,  Esquire,  of  Kingston,  New  York.  They 
can  hardly  be  called  Vaughns,  yet  they  possess  some  merit. 


{  90  } 


Senate  House,  Kingston,  N.  Y. 


Sarah  Tappan  Vanderlyn 

Senate  House,  Kingston,  N.  Y. 


John  Vanderlyn 


Nicholas  Vajnderlyn,  Jr. 

Senate  House,  Kingston,  N.  Y. 


John  Vanderlyn 


Severyn  Bruyn  John  Vanderlym 


Senate  House,  Kingston,  N.  Y. 


Edmund  Bbuyn 


Senate  House,  Kingston,  N.  Y. 


John  Vanderlyn 


Governor  Daniel  D.  Tompkins 

Senate  House,  Kingston,  N.  Y. 


John  Vanderlyn 


William  Cockburn 


Senate  House.  Kingston.  N.  Y. 


John  Yanderlyn 


Judge  Nicholas  Sickles 


Senate  House,  Kingston,  N.  Y, 


John  Vanderlyn 


Judge  James  Chrystie  Forsyth 

Senate  House.  Kingston,  N.  Y. 


John  Vanderlyn 


Unknown  Female  Portrait  John  Yanderlyn 

Mr.  Edward  Coykendall 
Kingston,  N.  Y. 


M  arils  Mourning  Over  The  Ruins  Of  Carthage 

Senate  House,  Kingston,  N.  Y. 


John  Vanderlyn 


W  ater  Color  Sketch  John  Yanderlyn 

Mr.  Edward  CoykendalL  Kingston,  N.  Y. 


Personal  Interviews 


Y  COLONEL  WILLIAM  DUSENBURY  CRAFT  I  was  informed  of  Mr. 
Nelson  Chase. 

By  Mr.  Chase,  at  the  Jumel  House,  I  was  informed  of  the  existence  of 
Colonel  Burr's  natural  son,  Aaron  Columbus  Burr,  and  of  Mr.  Henry  Burr,  the 
the  retired  merchant,  and  enthusiastic  genealogist  of  his  family. 
By  Mr.  Henry  Burr  I  was  informed  of  Mrs.  Ann  S.  Stephens,  the  authoress,  who  told  me 
the  story  of  Mrs.  Webb. 

By  Mr.  R.  C.  Edwards  I  learned  of  Mrs.  Tompkins,  nominated  in  Colonel  Burr's  will  as 
the  guardian  of  his  daughter  Frances. 

She,  in  turn,  told  me  the  history  of  this  daughter  Frances  and  of  Colonel  Craft,  Colonel 
Burr's  last  law  partner,  and  through  them  my  acquaintance  was  extended  to  other  Burrites. 
The  conversations  held  with  these  individuals  form  the  basis  of  many  of  the  histories  of  indi- 
viduals and  events  hereinbefore  set  forth,  and  here  may  prove  twice  told  tales. 


i  9i } 


Mrs.  Tompkins'  Interview 


HEN  my  attention  was  drawn  to  the  Nag's  Head  portrait  of  Theodosia  I  wrote 
to  Dr.  Pool,  July  9,  1878,  concerning  it.  At  his  suggestion  I  addressed  a  letter 
to  Mr.  Amory  Edwards  Feb.  10,  1882.  Feb.  25,  1882,  it  was  answered  by  Mr. 
R.  C.  Edwards  who  stated:  that  his  brother  Amory  Edwards  had  died  sud- 
denly on  Oct.  22,  preceding;  that  he  had  been  a  resident  of  Elizabeth,  N.  J.; 
that  he  left  an  only  child,  a  grown  daughter,  and  that  there  were  no  references  to  be  found 
concerning  the  Pool  portrait  among  his  papers  and  that  "It  is  barely  possible  that  a  Mrs. 
Tompkins  who  had  the  care  of  Col.  Burr's  daughter,  Frances,  may  be  able  to  give  you  some 
light  on  the  subject  of  your  inquiry.  I  am  not  positive  that  Mrs.  Tompkins  is  living.  You  can 
learn  of  her  son  Minthorne  Tompkins,  Captain  of  Hook  and  Ladder  Co.,  5th  St.,  near  Avenue 
D.,  in  this  city." 

Mrs.  Tompkins  was  alive,  and  in  the  spring  of  1882,  I  called  upon  her  at  Tarrytown.  She 
gave  me  the  following  information:  It  was  she  to  whom  Burr  consigned  his  daughter  Frances; 
that  Oscar  Taylor,  the  witness  to  Burr's  will  died  soon  after  Burr  from  tuberculosis;  that  the 
daughter  Elizabeth  mentioned  by  Burr  in  his  will  died  young;  that  Frances  A.  Burr,  his  other 
daughter,  was  the  child  of  a  lady  of  35  or  40  years  of  age  at  the  time  her  child  was  born;  that 
she  was  probably  an  Albanian;  that  she  was  ill  at  Mrs.  Tompkins'  house  and  was  visited  by 
Quakers;  that  her  name  is  unknown;  that  she  was  last  seen  when  the  child  was  2  years  old; 
that  Frances  was  educated  at  Miss  Haines'  fashionable  school  in  Gramercy  Park,  New  York 
City;  that  she  was  good  looking,  possessed  a  sweet  disposition  and  was  accomplished;  that 
she  married  Levi  P.  Leach,  and  that  she  had  died  about  three  years  before  this  interview; 
that  her  husband  still  survived  and  resided  at  Pearl  River,  Rockland  Co.,  N.  Y.,  where  he 
teaches  school;  that  they  had  two  children  living — Aaron  Burr  Leach,  aged  about  26  years, 
and  Stanley  Prevost  Leach,  aged  about  24  years;  that  it  was  Burr's  daughter  Frances  who 
erected  the  monument  over  Burr's  grave;  that  she  possesses  a  lithograph  copy  of  the  Vandyck 
painting;  that  in  the  possession  of  Levi  P.  Leach  there  is  an  unfinished  portrait  of  Burr  for 
which  he  paid  in  the  vicinity  of  $100.,  which  he  considers  a  Vanderlyn,  and  which  is  identical 
with  the  Vanderlyn  portrait  of  1802,  as  it  is  known  to  her  by  its  engraving.  Finally  it  was  Mrs. 
Tompkins  who  referred  me  to  Col.  Craft  from  whom  I  subsequently  obtained  so  much  valu- 
able information. 


i  92  } 


Mr.  Murphy's  Interview 


R.  MURPHY,  the  father  of  the  late  Mr.  Charles  F.  Murphy,  leader  of  Tam- 
many Hall,  New  York  City,  was  a  man  along  in  years,  residing  in  Madison 
Street,  when,  December  5,  1881,  I  was  sent,  an  assistant,  to  my  subsequent 
distinguished  medical  partner,  Dr.  E.  B.  Belden,  to  see  him  professionally. 

He  was  a  most  estimable  and  upright  man,  refined,  well  read  and  pos- 
sessed manners  of  much  charm.  He  had  then,  in  his  custody,  a  large  and  valuable  collection  of 
ancient  paintings  consigned  to  him  from  Peru,  during  or  before  the  late  Civil  War,  containing, 
it  was  claimed,  works  by  Velasquez  and  Murillo.  This  collection  was  held  by  him  in  a  fiduci- 
ary capacity  and  I  believe  he  likewise  had  a  personal  interest  in  it.  No  offer  could  induce  him 
to  part  with  a  single  piece  of  his  trust.  What  became  of  them  ultimately,  I  never  heard.  The 
conversation  turning  on  the  vicissitudes  of  art,  he  remarked:  "perhaps,  Doctor,  you  may  yet 
come  across  the  long  lost  portrait  of  Theodosia  Burr." 

Inasmuch  as  I  had  only  a  month  before  acquired  the  1802  portrait,  by  Vanderlyn,  of  her 
father  Colonel  Burr,  I  followed  his  chance  remark  with  many  interrogations,  and  his  replies 
gave  me  my  first  knowledge  of  the  Bowrowsons. 

In  substance  he  stated:  "When  I  was  a  small  child,  clinging  to  my  mother's  dress,  I  heard 
her  frequently  gossip  with  her  neighbors  concerning  the  Bowrowsons.  They  were  all  residents 
of  the  same  locality.  When  Colonel  Burr  resided  at  Richmond  Hill,  he  employed  Anthony 
Bowrowson  as  a  coachman,  and  Anthony's  wife  as  a  cook  in  his  establishment.  When  it  be- 
came necessary  for  Burr  to  make  a  hurried  departure  from  this  country,  he  borrowed  money 
from  these  Bowrowsons,  and  they,  in  turn,  annexed  all  his  available  belongings,  including  a 
portrait  of  Theodosia,  with  all  of  which  they  removed  from  Richmond  Hill  to  Sullivan  Street. 
Upon  Colonel  Burr's  return,  he  asked,  begged  and  implored  the  Bowrowsons  for  his  portrait 
of  Theodosia,  without  avail.  Anthony  Bowrowson  shortly  afterward  became  insane,  and  it 
was  believed,  by  his  neighbors,  that  it  was  a  visitation  of  God  for  his  cruelty  to  Colonel  Burr. 
The  Bowrowsons  claimed  in  their  defense  that  Colonel  Burr  never  liquidated  his  obligations, 
and  that  their  possession  of  his  property  was  held  by  a  legal  judgment. 


{  93  > 


Mr.  Henry  A.  Burr's  Interview 


OVEMBER  9th,  1882,  I  called  upon  Mr.  Henry  A.  Burr,  44  East  34th  Street, 
New  York  City,  one  of  the  most  distinguished  members  of  the  Burr  family. 
Among  the  many  things  he  told  me  was  a  remarkable  comment  of  Burr's, 
prophetic  in  character  and  unfortunately  now  realized.  Burr,  when  travelling 
in  New  England,  stopped  at  New  Lebanon,  Connecticut,  to  visit  a  cousin,  the 
father  of  Henry  A.  Burr.  The  postboy  riding  by  the  house,  threw  the  Albany  Argus,  the  news- 
paper of  that  day,  into  the  yard.  Burr,  who  had  not  seen  a  paper  for  some  time,  read  it  care- 
fully for  a  half  or  three  quarters  of  an  hour,  when  he  abruptly  threw  it  down  and  exclaimed 
bitterly  "All  that  I  have  fought  for  has  gone  for  nought;  the  Legislature  has  determined  upon 
the  speedy  naturalization  of  all  aliens,  and  they,  once  having  tasted  the  sweets  of  liberty,  will 
flock  to  this  country  to  be  soon  followed  by  hordes  of  the  lower  element,  among  whom  I  have 
travelled  in  Europe,  and  in  time  they  will  outnumber  you  two  to  one,  will  rule  you,  will  de- 
mand an  equal  division  of  your  property  with  you.  Next  behold  you  will  have  an  elective 
judiciary."  This  was  in  1822,  and  in  1844  the  right  of  appointment  of  the  judiciary  was  re- 
moved from  the  Legislature  and  given  to  the  people.  Burr's  remarks  showed  great  vision  and 
political  sagacity. 

Burr  obtained  a  lease  for  a  number  of  years  of  a  large  tract  of  land,  which  he  immediately 
released  to  Astor,  or  a  similarly  large  real  estate  operator,  he,  Burr,  to  have  all  the  rents  for 
the  last  three  years,  and  no  other  remuneration;  the  lessor  to  pay  the  taxes,  etc.  At  the  expira- 
tion of  the  lease,  Burr's  daughter,  Mrs.  Leach,  came  forward  and  claimed  the  rest;  her  action 
was  resisted,  but  the  lessor  was  compelled  by  law  to  pay,  by  which  she  realized  a  considerable 
sum  of  money. 


{  94  > 


Colonel  William  Dusenbury  Craft's  Interview 


N  JUNE  12,  1882,  I  called  upon  Colonel  William  Dusenbury  Craft,  who  was 
then  about  eighty  years  of  age.  He  was  one  of  the  most  courtly,  urbane  men 
that  I  have  ever  met,  aside  from  being  extraordinarily  personally  attractive. 
He  had  been  a  student  in  the  law  office  of  Aaron  Burr  and  finally  became  his 
partner.  He  knew  the  Bowrowsons  thoroughly  well.  Anthony,  of  that  name, 
was  German  born  and  a  first  class  cook,  and  as  such  officiated  for  Aaron  Burr;  his  wife  as- 
sisted about  the  house.  When  Burr  fled  to  Europe,  the  Bowrowsons  were  left  in  charge  of  all 
his  effects,  paintings,  books,  maps,  etc.  They  advanced  money  to  Burr  for  which  Burr  con- 
veyed to  them  certain  lots  of  ground  in  the  city,  but  as  their  claims  were  never  completely 
satisfied,  they  kept  Burr's  effects.  Upon  the  vacation  of  the  Richmond  Hill  house,  the  Bow- 
rowsons moved  to  Sullivan  Street,  between  Broome  and  Spring  Streets,  where  they  kept  a 
smoke  house. 

Colonel  Burr  had  a  perfect  gallery  of  portraits  of  distinguished  men,  among  them  Talley- 
rand ;  many  of  which  passed  to  Bowrowson's  daughter,  Mrs.  Shelburg,  and  were  taken  by  her 
to  New  Jersey.  She  married  a  second  time. 

Aaron  Burr's  daughter,  Frances,  married  Mr.  Leech,  a  very  fine,  gentlemanly,  cultivated 
person;  Mrs.  Leech  was  a  most  charming  individual. 

Theodosia  Burr  was  wonderfully  studious;  study  with  her  was  a  perfect  excitement;  it 
was  first  one  professor,  then  another  all  day,  hardly  finding  time  enough  to  eat.  She  needed  no 
parental  urging,  it  was  love  with  her. 

Aaron  Burr  was  the  most  accomplished  man  I  ever  met.  In  all  my  acquaintance  with  him 
he  never  used  an  improper  word,  expression  nor  idea.  There  was  about  him  always  a  gentle- 
manly reserve.  There  were  no  sins  laid  at  his  door  that  Alexander  Hamilton  had  not  been 
guilty  of;  some  worse,  because  Hamilton  embezzled  the  public  money,  and  when  detected, 
openly  published  an  account  of  it  in  a  pamphlet,  in  which  he  stated:  "Yes,  I  have  embezzled 

and  spent  the  money  on  Mrs  ,"  a  noted  courtesan  of  that  day.  His  friends  thought 

him  idiotic;  bought  up  all  the  pamphlets  at  any  price,  and  settled  his  indebtedness.  Lying 
articles  have  appeared  in  print  concerning  Colonel  Burr,  by  men  whose  description  of  him  is 
the  best  evidence  they  had  never  known  him  personally.  Once,  only  recently,  appeared  such 
an  article,  written  by  an  octogenarian,  who,  when  Burr  lived,  begged  for  the  pleasure  of  his 
acquaintance,  and  was  so  lowered  and  abashed  by  the  noble  presence  of  Burr,  that  he  lost  his 
senses  and  dignity  and  bowed  himself  out  like  a  cur,  stumbling  over  chairs,  etc.  He  has  at- 
tained wealth,  still  lives  and  is  surrounded  by  children  and  grandchildren,  and  it  was  only  to 
spare  them  that  the  article  which  calumniated  Burr,  speaking  of  him  as  mean  and  insignifi- 
cant, was  allowed  to  go  unheeded.  So  much  injustice  was  done  to  the  memory  of  Burr  that  it 
was  the  intention  of  Judge  Edwards  and  Colonel  Craft,  to  write  his  life,  but  the  work  was 
regrettably  never  commenced.  Burr  rarely,  if  ever,  lost  a  case,  and  the  reason  of  his  success 


i  95  > 


was  his  assiduity;  he  worked  twenty  hours  and  slept  four,  and  Colonel  Craft  did  likewise. 

Three  days  after  the  preceding  interview  with  Colonel  Craft,  June  15,  1882,  I  had  occa- 
sion to  see  him  again,  when  he  supplied  me  with  the  following  additional  information. 

Aaron  Columbus  Burr  was  born  in  France;  came  to  this  country  early  in  life,  and  sought 
out  Aaron  Burr  who  befriended  him  despite  Mrs.  Tompkins'  statement  to  the  contrary  that 
he  was  neither  related  to  nor  aided  by  Burr.  Aaron  Columbus  Burr  had  a  portrait  of  Aaron 
Burr,  taken  late  in  life,  which  Nelson  Chase  tried  to  obtain.  Colonel  Craft  likewise  had  one, 
but  in  the  midst  of  moving  and  business  cares,  it  was  lost  many  years  ago.  Chase,  he  said,  had 
one  at  the  Jumel  House,  as  also  many  other  effects  of  Colonel  Burr,  and  ironically  commenting, 
said  "anything  to  give  tone  to  his  family."  Colonel  Craft's  comments  on  Madam  Jumel  were 
not  flattering.  She  was  an  American;  her  family  resided  in  New  York  City;  she  became  a  pub- 
he  character,  and  lived  probably  in  Chatham  Street.  Further  continuing  he  said  "her  pro- 
fession was  not  so  public  a  matter  in  her  day  as  now."  Among  her  visitors  were  Aaron  Burr, 
Alexander  Hamilton,  Monsieur  Jumel  and  other  young  men  of  the  day.  Jumel  was  impulsive. 
When  a  poor  cartman's  horse  dropped  dead,  to  the  great  distress  of  its  owner,  probably  his 
sole  possession,  Jumel  joined  the  rapidly  collecting  crowd,  looked  on  for  a  while,  turned  and 
addressed  them,  saying,  "Gentlemen,  you  pity  this  man  and  so  do  I."  Taking  fifty  dollars  or 
thereabouts  from  his  pocket,  he  exclaimed,  holding  up  his  money,  "I  pity  him  so  much,  gentle- 
men, how  much  do  you  pity  him?"  In  less  than  five  minutes  he  had  collected  enough  to  pur- 
chase a  new  beast. 

The  future  Madam  Jumel  knew  her  man.  Among  her  intimate  acquaintances  she  num- 
bered a  priest  and  a  physician.  She  was  taken  ill  and  Jumel  was  sent  for.  The  physician  assured 
him  that  she  could  not  possibly  recover,  and  the  priest  gave  her  extreme  unction,  while  she 
implored  Jumel  to  marry  her,  that  her  past  might  be  blotted  out  by  dying  in  the  married  state. 
Jumel  consented  in  the  goodness  of  his  heart,  and  promptly  thereafter  a  favorable  turn  took 
place  in  her  malady,  which  speedily  terminated  in  convalescence.  She  was  a  loud,  coarse,  vul- 
gar woman.  This  story  was  given  to  Colonel  Craft  by  John  Pelletreau,  who  resided  with  Aaron 
Burr  and  who  knew  everything  earthly  concerning  old  New  York  families.  Colonel  Craft  had 
never  mentioned  this  story  to  anyone  living,  except  his  brother  and  myself.  Pelletreau  was 
mentioned  in  the  Eden  will  as  "to  be  a  guide  in  business  matters  to  the  young  ladies,"  etc. 
After  Burr's  success,  in  the  great  Eden  case,  Madam  Jumel  would  frequently  call  at  his  resi- 
dence in  Jay  Street,  where,  like  all  lawyers  of  the  time,  he  had  his  office.  She  besieged  him  and 
he  married  her.  She  tried  to  rule  and  he  demurred,  and  finally,  when  things  became  unpleas- 
ant, they  parted.  She  frequently,  thereafter,  called  upon  him  and  besought  his  return,  but  he 
was  adamant;  she  became  angered,  and  sued  for  a  divorce.  As  the  suit  was  about  to  begin,  a 
lawyer  friend  of  Burr's  asked  him  whether  he  should  defend  him.  He  replied:  "No,  no,  for 
God's  sake  no."  He  was  glad  to  rid  himself  of  her  at  any  price,  and  there  is  no  doubt  but  the 
evidence  that  she  produced  for  her  separation  was  false.  Burr  was,  in  all  probability,  incom- 
petent at  that  date  and  not  likely  to  be  guilty  of  the  immorality  she  charged. 

Madam  Jumel  was  in  the  habit  of  riding  in  a  large,  yellow  bodied  chariot,  with  footmen 
and  outriders.  Chase,  now  living,  in  1882,  at  the  Jumel  homestead,  was  a  poor  country  lad 
who  came  to  New  York  and  got  her  protection.  She  afterward  treated  him  like  a  cur,  but  he 


i  96  } 


managed  to  hang  on,  especially  as  he  had  married  a  daughter  of  Madam  Jumel's  sister. 
Madam  Jumel  claimed  Chase's  wife  as  her  own  daughter,  but  it  was  absolutely  false;  she  grew 
up  and  she  was  known  by  her  own  family  name  until  she  married  Chase.  Madam  Jumel  willed 
her  property  to  the  children  of  Chase,  a  son  and  a  daughter.  Her  estate  has  been  in  much  liti- 
gation, and  Charles  O'Connor,  the  eminent  lawyer,  who  was  retained  as  counsel,  made  it  the 
pride  and  object  of  his  life  to  sustain  the  Chase-Jumel  interests.  The  Bowrowsons  knew  Ma- 
dam Jumel  very  well. 

Aug.  26, 1882. 1  again  saw  Col.  Craft.*  As  usual  he  proved  to  be  a  mine  of  information  and 
a  remarkable  connecting  link  between  the  past  and  present.  He  revered  Burr's  memory,  de- 
fended his  reputation  and  bitterly  assailed  his  enemies.  As  I  have  said  before  no  finer  example 
of  the  so-called  old  school,  formal  and  polished  gentleman  ever  existed.  I  drew  his  attention  to 
the  article  published  in  the  New  Jersey  Historical  Society's  Proceedings  upon  the  history  of 
the  portrait  of  Burr  by  Gilbert  Stuart,  and  while  he  had  never  heard  of  the  name  Keaser,  he 
agreed  with  me  that  it  was  substituted  to  conceal  the  name  of  Bowrowson.  Col.  Craft  knew 
the  Bowrowsons  well ;  they  finally  moved  from  New  York  to  New  Jersey ;  he  called  there  with 
one  of  the  sons  of  old  Anthony,  and  to  reach  their  home  they  drove  from  Jersey  City  to  New- 
ark and  beyond  to  a  farm  house,  or  at  least  a  house  with  but  one  neighbor  in  sight.  At  one 
time  they  occupied,  in  New  York  City,  a  double  frame  house  which  had  a  roof  with  a  double 
slant.  This  sat  back  of  their  stable  and  store  in  the  midst  of  a  considerable  sized  lot  which  ex- 
tended to  a  small  street  in  the  rear.  When  Christian,  the  oldest  son,  took  the  business,  the  old 
folks  moved  to  the  brick  house  on  the  corner  of  Spring  and  Sullivan  Streets,  and  he  moved  into 
the  frame  house.  The  New  Jersey  property  was  purchased  out  of  their  funds  by  Mr.  Shelburg, 
who  married  their  daughter  Theodosia.  Shelburg  was  a  strictly  honest  man  and  following  the 
decease  of  the  old  folks,  when  discontent  arose,  was  able  to  account  satisfactorily  for  all  funds 
that  had  been  in  his  possession.  The  children  of  Anthony  Bowrowson  were  not  over  intelligent; 
the  old  woman,  his  wife,  was  thrifty  but  meant  for  a  servant.  In  the  large  frame  house  above 
alluded  to  there  was  a  room  of  immense  size  which  was  filled  with  the  portraits  and  other  ar- 
ticles taken  from  Burr's  house.  The  portraits  were  certainly  not  less  than  twenty.  To  Colonel 
Craft  they  promised  the  portrait  of  Talleyrand,  but  when  asked  for  it,  they  never  knew  "ex- 
actly who  had  it;" — they  had  probably  commenced  to  dispose  of  the  goods  and  this  may  have 
already  gone.  Colonel  Craft  became  Burr's  partner  in  1822,  and  they  then  were  working  on 
the  Eden  estates  and  were  likewise  driven  with  other  work.  The  claim  of  the  Bowrowson  fam- 
ily to  Burr's  effects  must  have  been  legally  good.  They  lived  in  the  city  for  many  years  after 
Burr's  return  and  he  never  attempted  to  regain  possession  of  these  effects.  When  Colonel  Craft 
was  associated  with  Burr,  he  was  asked  by  him  to  procure  from  his  former  effects  in  the  pos- 
session of  the  Bowrowson  family,  a  few  globes  (of  the  world)  which  he  had  formerly  in  his 
library.  These  he  desired  to  present  to  his  clients,  the  Misses  Eden,  then  living  in  a  neighbor- 
ing city — Troy— Burr  being  then  in  Albany.  Colonel  Craft  being  on  intimate  terms  with  the 
Bowrowsons,  asked  for  the  globes  which  were  willingly  promised  him.  The  old  man  Bowrow- 
son, then  insane  (from  long  use  of  drink)  wanted  to  help  things  along,  so  when  he  discovered 

*Colonel  Craft  was  born  Dec.  22,  1802,  and  died  Nov.  19,  1887,  and  was  buried  in  Fishkill  Cemetery,  N.  Y.  He  was  the  last 
of  the  three  husbands  of  Magdalen  Robertson,  who  was  the  youngest  daughter  of  Archibald  Robertson,  the  New  York  miniaturist, 
and  none  of  them  was  happy. 


<  97  } 


them  in  the  garret  brought  them  to  the  head  of  the  stairs  and  rolled  them  down.  They  were 
shattered  into  fragments  and  Dusy — (the  Colonel's  nickname  among  them)  failed  in  his 
efforts. 

Madam  Jumel  persistently  visited  Burr  and  drew  him  into  marriage.  She  was  a  devil  in- 
carnate; overbearing  and  domineering  beyond  human  endurance.  Burr  sold  certain  lots  of 
property  for  which  he  obtained  $15,000.,  which  he  invested  and  probably  lost.  This  angered 
her  and  he  retaliated  in  his  cool  way  by  saying  "Madam  I  think  I  am  able  to  take  care  of  your 
property."  They  separated  and  she  frequently  besought  him  to  return  and  it  was  several  years 
thereafter  that  the  suit  for  divorce  was  instituted — probably  at  the  instigation  of  Chase  who 
disliked  Burr  to  have  any  control  of  the  Jumel  estate  in  any  way.  The  witnesses  to  the  divorce 
case  on  behalf  of  Madam  Jumel  were  two  servants,  mother  and  son,  both  half  witted,  who  had 
served  with  Burr.  Eminent  lawyer  friends  offered  to  defend  him,  but  he  refused;  Burr  was 
probably  at  that  time  sexually  incompetent.  Chase  informed  Colonel  Craft  that  the  decree  was 
taken.  The  octogenarian  referred  to,  who  rendered  the  opponents  of  Burr  service  by  villifying 
him,  was  General  Webb — he  who  sold  himself  for  political  purposes  for  $52,000.;  he  who 
changed  himself  in  politics  in  twenty-four  hours,  when  the  United  States,  through  its  agent 
Nicholas  Biddle,  President  of  the  .  .  .  Bank,  desired  the  services  of  a  newspaper;  a  man  whose 
obsequiousness  belittled  him  in  the  eyes  of  Burr.  Webb's  article  in  the  Evening  Post  was  fol- 
lowed by  more  reminiscenses  by  an  aged  man — none  other  than  the  well-known  Thurlow 
Weed;  he,  who  "sought  Col.  Burr's  advice"  in  all  matters  of  statecraft,  likewise,  as  there  were 
few  to  defend  him,  turned  his  pen  against  the  illustrious  man.  Burr  was  generous  and  im- 
provident; would  spend  his  money  so  lavishly  as  to  need  oftentimes  to  raise  money  on  his 
prospective  fees  in  successful  cases.  This  want  of  money  and  probably  the  little  regard  he  had 
for  the  portraits  of  men  who  had  been  his  friends  in  prosperity,  but  knew  him  not  in  adversity, 
were  probably  reasons  why  he  did  not  redeem  the  effects  in  the  hands  of  the  Bowrowson 
family. 


i  98  } 


Mrs.  Ann  S.  Stephens'  Interview 


OVEMBER  14th,  1882,  I  called  upon  Mrs.  Ann  S.  Stephens,  the  authoress,  a 
sweet,  cultivated  old  lady.  I  was  moved  to  make  this  call,  as  Mr.  Henry  A. 
Burr  informed  me  that  she  was  the  owner  of  several  of  Burr's  paintings.  These 
proved  to  be  a  portrait  of  Vanderlyn  by  himself  and  a  portrait  of  Mary  Wool- 
stonecraft  by  Opie,  both  fine  works,  restored  by  an  Englishman,  in  New  York, 
by  the  name  of  West. 

When  Burr  was  much  broken  in  health,  a  good  soul  by  the  name  of  Mrs.  Joshua  Webb, 
gave  him,  so  the  story  runs,  the  basement  room  in  her  house,  to  avoid  the  stairs,  and  minis- 
tered to  his  wants  in  a  most  generous  fashion.  These  two  paintings,  now  owned  by  Mrs. 
Stephens,  were  derived  from  this  Mrs.  Webb,  who  also  possessed  one  of  Theodosia,  and  one, 
probably  of  Red  Jacket,  the  Indian,  all  of  which  were  received  directly  from  Colonel  Burr. 

Mrs.  Webb  was  born  Isabel  Graham,  or  Palmer;  her  mother  was  a  cousin  to  Sir  James 
Graham.  She  was  born  at  Netherby  Hall,  in  Scotland,  the  seat  of  the  Grahams.  Her  partly 
divulged  history  is  interesting,  sad  and  romantic ;  there  was  much  about  it  she  would  conceal. 
Her  first  marriage  occurred  in  England  to  Mr.  Legg,  by  whom  she  had  one  son,  and  concern- 
ing this  early  married  life  we  know  nothing.  She  came  to  this  country  with  Captain  Stewart, 
an  English  gentleman,  who  was  well  received  in  society.  While  visiting  with  Captain  Stewart, 
at  the  home  of  John  Randolph,  at  Roanoke,  Virginia,  they  had  their  sole  child  born  to  them, 
a  daughter,  who  in  due  time  became  the  wife  of  a  minister  in  the  United  States,  and  who  was 
the  heir  of  Simon  Lovat,  Lord  Fraser,  the  last  man  executed  in  the  Tower. 

She  married,  third,  Mr.  Newton,  by  whom  she  had  two  boys,  one  of  whom,  only,  grew  to 
manhood,  and  was  known  by  the  name  of  Malcolm  Webb.  It  was  while  she  was  Mrs.  Newton, 
keeping  a  boarding  house,  that  she  befriended  Colonel  Burr. 

Her  fourth  husband  was  Captain  Joshua  Webb,  a  gentleman  fifteen  or  twenty  years  her 
junior,  and  a  man  of  wealth,  who  came  from  Santo  Domingo  to  New  York  City. 

When  Captain  Stewart's  funds  ran  out,  she  was  abandoned  and  it  was  very  probable  that 
she  was  never  more  than  his  common  law  wife,  though  she  passed  in  society  as  one  legally  wed. 

Her  third  husband,  Mr.  Newton,  was  likewise  wealthy  but  became  dissolute  and  lost  his 
estates.  He,  she  sued  for  divorce,  which  was  promptly  obtained  with  his  concurrence,  so  that 
she  could  marry  Webb.  Stewart,  Newton,  herself  and  Webb  were  all  present  in  the  lawyer's 
office,  it  is  said,  when  the  divorce  was  agreed  upon,  and  Webb  stipulated  to  take  Newton's 
two  children,  give  them  his  name  and  educate  them.  Mrs.  Webb  was  singularly  fine  looking, 
gifted  and  accomplished.  After  her  last  marriage,  she  moved  to  Portland,  where  she  entered 
the  best  society,  and  when  she  subsequently  removed  to  New  York,  she  brought  letters  to 
Mrs.  Stephens  from  people  of  distinction  in  that  city.  Webb  shortly  lost  his  money,  and  they 
were  compelled  to  sell  one  thing  after  another,  until  they  became  so  reduced  that  they  finally 


{  99  } 


borrowed  money  of  Mrs.  Stephens.  Mrs.  Stephens'  husband  guaranteed  her  credit  at  his 
grocers,  where  she  ran  up  a  heavy  bill  which  Mr.  Stephens  had  to  liquidate. 

It  was  always  the  intention  of  Mrs.  Webb  to  present  the  portraits  of  Vanderlyn  and  Mary 
Woolstonecraft  to  Mrs.  Stephens,  but  her  poverty  was  so  great  that  she  borrowed  their  full 
value  several  times  over  from  Mrs.  Stephens  before  she  gave  her  title  to  them. 

The  portrait  of  Theodosia  Burr,  said  to  be  the  1802  portrait  by  Vanderlyn,  was  seized  for 
Mrs.  Webb's  board  bill  by  a  landlady  by  the  name  of  Mrs.  Crosby,  with  whom  it  abided, 
though  Judge  Edwards  made  effort  to  secure  it.  Later  Mrs.  Crosby  informed  her  friends,  wish- 
ing to  increase  her  own  importance,  that  it  had  been  a  personal  gift  to  her  by  Colonel  Burr. 
Mrs.  Crosby  moved  to  Astoria,  Long  Island,  but  the  painting  was  never  located,  even  though 
I  made  prompt  effort  to  find  it. 

Mrs.  Stephens  referred  me  to  a  Mrs.  Longstreth,  a  resident  of  New  York  City,  a  lady  who 
moved  in  a  very  refined  and  intellectual  circle  and  who,  by  deduction,  I  am  disposed  to  think 
was  one  of  Mrs.  Crosby's  daughters,  yet  I  am  contradicted  by  my  own  evidence.  It  was  my 
impression  that  it  was  she  who  gave  me  the  address  of  the  gentleman  whose  letter  follows,  but 
it  is  incredible  that  a  well  informed  daughter  would  refer  me  to  an  outsider  for  information 
concerning  her  own  mother;  so  by  elimination  the  address  was  probably  given  me  by  Mrs. 
Stephens,  though  Mrs.  Longstreth  knew  of  the  Crosby  Theodosia.  Col.  Brewerton's  letter 
follows: 

Springfield,  Mass. 

J.  E.  Stillwell,  M.D.,  15  April/83. 

My  dear  Sir 

Yr  favor  of  the  5th  Inst,  followed  me  to  Boston:  and  was  only  red  a  day  or  two  ago,  this 
will  account  for  any  apparent  delay  in  responding  to  the  enquiries  therein  made: 

I  regret  greatly  that  I  am  unable  to  aid  you:  My  residence  in  the  Crosby  family  was  a 
matter  of  many  years  ago — and  memory  recalls  but  faintly  the  incidents  of  my  brief  sojourn 
under  their  roof.  Mrs.  Crosby  was  then  a  very  old  woman  and  must  I  think  be  dead.  The 
daughters  (whose  names  you  quote  correctly)  I  met  sometime  in  1864  and  I  understood  Mrs. 
L.  to  say  that  her  mother  was  then  living  at  Astoria — but  I  fancy  that  they  had  a  hard 
struggle  with  poverty — and  would  be  difficult  people  to  trace — Mrs.  C.  could  you  have  con- 
ferred with  her  would  have  been  a  rich  mine  for  such  information  as  you  seek.  She  was  full  of 
anecdotes  of  Col.  Burr  whose  last  hours  she  appeared  to  have  been  familiar  with — she  claimed 
indeed  to  have  been  his  nurse  in  his  final  illness,  and  told  me  that  she  cross  examined  him 
without  success  in  regard  to  his  "love  affairs."  Sinner  as  he  was  counted — he  seems  in  this  mat- 
ter to  have  been  a  gentleman  to  the  last — 

Again  regretting  that  I  am  unable  to  assist  your  search  I  am 

Very  sincerely  yours 
My  address  is  G.  Douglas  Brewerton 

Col.  G.  Douglas  Brewerton 
Box"L." 
Essex 

Conn. 


{  100  } 


Mrs.  Stephens'  interview  further  revealed  that  Mrs.  Webb  divided  with  her  husband  her- 
farthings,  until  her  own  death  for  he  outlived  her.  When  her  end  was  approaching,  she  asked 
Mrs.  Stephens  to  look  after  her  boy  Malcolm,  as  well  as  look  over  her  papers  and  destroy 
those  that  she  deemed  wise.  She  died  during  the  absence  of  Mrs.  Stephens  from  the  City,  who 
was  subsequently  informed  that  Mrs.  Webb  was  one  day  seen  crying  bitterly  and  destroying 
by  fire,  many  letters  and  keepsakes.  With  them  went  her  life's  history  and  clues  to  her  exact 
identity.  Mrs.  Stephens  nobly  kept  her  promise  and  Malcolm  proved  a  sorry  rascal.  For  some 
years  Mrs.  Webb  lived  upon  an  annuity  which  she  gradually  sold  until  her  rights  in  it  were 
extinct.  Her  daughter,  Mrs.  Fraser,  after  her  death  sought  Mrs.  Stephens  and  informed  her 
that  her  mother  had  property  in  Scotland  which  she  intended  to  try  to  obtain,  stating  that 
the  children  by  Mr.  Newton  were  illegitimate,  that  her  father,  Captain  Stewart,  was  living 
when  they  were  born.  She  was  willing  to  sacrifice  her  mother's  memory  for  the  possible  gain, 
but  her  investigations  only  proved  her  own  illegitimacy. 

Mrs.  Stephens  told  me  a  story  so  remarkably  romantic  that  it  might  well  seem  that  she  was 
falling  into  her  professional  habit  of  writing  fiction.  As  the  story  ran,  an  old  Scotchwoman 
went  from  house  to  house,  selling  small  odds  and  ends  to  her  customers,  among  whom  was 
Mrs.  Stephens.  One  day,  while  Mrs.  Webb  was  living  in  this  neighborhood,  in  her  deplorably 
reduced  state,  she  was  visited  by  the  old  peddler,  who  hurriedly  left  and  strangely  next  called 
at  Mrs.  Stephens  where,  in  great  excitement,  she  related  that  to  her  dismay  she  had  seen  "a 
lady  of  Netherby  in  sad  surroundings."  When  interrogated,  she  stated:  "yes,  she  had  known 
her,  as  of  course  only  the  likes  of  a  poor  woman  such  as  she  could  know  a  grand  lady,  only  to 
step  aside  to  let  her  pass  and  to  courtesy ;  it  was  a  sad  day  that  her  eyes  should  see  a  lady  of 
Netherby  so  reduced."  This  was  surely  strange  corroboration  to  the  early  life  history  of  Mrs. 
Webb,  a  history  to  which  she  rarely  alluded.  Her  father  was  a  great  admirer  of  Colonel  Burr, 
and  it  was  he  who  ordered,  and  gave  the  portrait  of  Mary  Woolstonecraft  to  Colonel  Burr,  a 
portrait  which  has  been  engraved,  and  beneath  which  is  the  statement  that  she  was  the  first 
to  vindicate  women's  rights.  Her  husband,  Mr.  Godwin,  the  poet,  had  likewise  an  engraving 
made  of  himself. 

Burr's  papers  were  stored  in  her  garret.  One  day  he  asked  for  them,  and  went  over  them 
tenderly  and  destroyed  many.  Of  those  that  remained,  Mrs.  Webb  and  Mrs.  Judge  Edwards 
saw  all,  and  not  a  fine  was  there  among  them  to  compromise  anyone.  If  such  had  existed  they 
had  been  destroyed.  Destruction  does  not  mean  incrimination;  it  was  likely  fine  sentiment. 
Burr  remained  a  cavalier  as  long  as  he  lived.  When  old  and  paralytic,  a  woman  called  upon 
him,  and  demanded  money  for  their  child,  an  infant  at  the  breast.  Mrs.  Webb,  who  was  pres- 
ent, indignantly  turned  upon  the  female,  expressed  herself  strongly,  and  ordered  her  out.  Burr 
straightening  himself  with  difficulty,  turned  to  Mrs.  Webb  and  exclaimed :  "be  silent  madam! 
Any  man  who  receives  such  a  compliment  from  any  woman,  should  accept  it." 

The  Colonel  was  fidelity  itself;  he  never  divulged  a  secret.  Once,  when  destroying  papers 
at  Mrs.  Webb's  house,  he  came  across  a  lock  of  hair.  She,  as  she  commonly  addressed  him, 
said  "Papa,  (or  father),  who  did  that  belong  to?"  "It  is  soft  and  beautiful  hair,"  he  remarked, 
with  a  caressing  stroke.  "But,  Papa,  you  have  not  answered  my  question.  Who  did  it  belong 
to?"  "It  is  as  fine  as  silk,"  he  observed  and  stroking  it  gently  again,  he  looked  up  and  said 
"you  would  not  have  me  say  more,  would  you?" 

{  101  > 


Mrs.  Stephens  likewise  told  me  a  story,  which  if  true,  would  reflect  strongly  against  the 
character  of  Burr.  It  bore  upon  his  divorce  from  Madam  Jumel  and  the  use  of  a  lady's  name 
as  corespondent.  It  was  embellished  with  many  circumstantial  details,  as  told  by  the  lady 
implicated,  and  was  apparently  accepted  by  Mrs.  Stephens  as  truth.  There  was  not  a  scintilla 
of  truth  in  it  however.  It  was  a  fabrication  no  doubt  to  save  herself.  Burr's  divorce  papers 
from  Madam  Jumel,  after  lying  sealed  for  many  years,  have  been  opened  recently  and  contra- 
dict every  statement;  no  lady  corespondent  is  mentioned.  It  was  a  vulgar  report  written  in 
long  hand,  at  full  length,  and  has  been  laid  before  me  by  Mr.  Samuel  H.  Wandell.  Because  of 
these  discrepancies  I  pass  by  Mrs.  Stephens'  tale. 

At  the  time  of  my  interview  with  Mrs.  Stephens,  Mrs.  Webb  has  been  dead  about  twenty 
five  years,  and  was  a  claimant  until  late  in  her  life,  for  an  estate  in  Northumberland,  which 
was  in  chancery. 

The  two  paintings  which  Mrs.  Stephens  received  from  Mrs.  Joshua  Webb,  the  Vanderlyn 
self-portrait  and  the  Mary  Woolstonecraft  portrait,  were  given  by  her  to  her  daughter,  Miss 
Ann  S.  Stephens,  who  in  turn,  by  her  will,  gave  the  former  to  the  Metropolitan  Museum  of 
Art,  New  York,  and  the  later  to  James  Speyer,  Esquire,  banker,  of  1058  Fifth  Avenue,  New 
York  City. 

Miscellaneous  Notes 

(1)  The  S.  G.  Rains  Company,  of  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York  City,  wrote  Pidgin,  July  2, 
1902,  that  they  had  for  sale,  at  $400.,  a  portrait  of  Aaron  Burr  by  Vanderlyn.  Letters  at  vari- 
ous times  to  various  people  failed  to  shed  any  light  upon  its  existence  and  so  late  as  Oct.  6, 
1923,  S.  G.  Rains,  of  New  York  City,  wrote:  "Replying  to  your  favor  of  the  4th  inst.,  I  regret 
that  I  cannot  recall  the  painting  mentioned  in  your  letter.  I  am  sorry  to  be  unable  to  be  of 
service  to  you." 

(2)  Colonel  William  Dusenbury  Craft  had  a  portrait  of  Colonel  Burr  but  it  was  lost  sight 
of  in  his  changes  of  residence. 

(3)  In  the  Brooklyn  Art  Institute,  Eastern  Parkway,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,  in  the  Fall  of  1923, 
was  exhibited  a  portrait,  by  an  unknown  artist,  owned  by  Mrs.  E.  Le  Grand  Beers,  of  the 
Hotel  Plaza,  New  York  City.  It  was  apparently  painted  close  to  1830  and  shows  a  young  lady 
of  approximately  25  years  at  breast  length,  facing  the  spectator  squarely,  head  turned  slightly 
to  the  left,  dressed  in  a  blue  plaited  waist,  cut  low  at  the  neck.  She  has  blue  eyes,  black  hair 
plastered  closely  to  her  head,  a  pointed  chin,  a  droop  to  the  tip  of  her  nose  and  a  three  loop 
gold  neck  chain.  Painted  on  canvas  about  18  by  24  inches. 

In  my  humble  opinion  there  is  a  mistake  in  this  attribution.  Theodosia's  eyes  were  hazel, 
her  hair  auburn,  she  died  in  the  winter  of  1812-13,  and  her  features  were  dissimilar  to  those 
in  this  picture. 

In  a  letter  to  Colonel  Joseph  H.  Colyer,  Jr.,  Nov.  2,  1923,  Mrs.  Beers  contributes  the 
following  information  concerning  this  painting:  "The  portrait  of  Theodosia  Burr,  daughter  of 
Aaron  Burr,  was  owned  by  him  and  was  among  the  contents  of  his  house  on  Staten  Island 
when  sold  many  years  ago  at  auction,  and  bought  by  the  grandfather  of  the  man  who  sold  it 


{  102  > 


to  the  antique  dealer  who  sold  it  to  me.  I  have  a  letter  from  the  former  owner  telling  how  it 
came  into  his  family's  possession.  It  is  most  interesting,  and  worth  while." 

(4)  Wives.  By  Gamaliel  Bradford  (Houghton,  Miflin  &  Co.).  This  work  has  a  chapter 
devoted  to  the  consideration  of  Theodosia  Burr- Alston,  illustrated  with  a  portrait  purporting 
to  be  her  likeness.  It  is  my  modest  opinion  that  in  their  claim  lies  an  error.  The  features  are 
dissimilar  to  those  of  Theodosia  Burr  Alston  and  the  arrangement  of  the  coiffure  and  the 
period  of  the  garment  suggest  a  painting  made  fifty  years  later. 

(5)  Portraits  of  the  Rev.  Jonathan  Edwards  and  his  wife  are  owned  by  the  Eh  Whitney 
family  of  New  Haven,  Conn. 

(6)  Mrs.  Ciprano  Andrande,  residing  at  the  Hotel  La  Salle,  East  60th  St.,  New  York 
City,  owns  an  unpublished  portrait  of  the  Rev.  Johnathan  Edwards,  painted  perhaps  by 
Smybert. 

(7)  Mrs.  Van  Ness,  of  the  Langham,  Central  Park  West  and  73rd  St.,  New  York  City, 
owns  Burr's  snuffbox. 

(8)  Some  of  Aaron  Burr's  hair  was  sold  at  the  Frossard  Sale,  and  there  was  also  on  loan, 
likewise  some  of  his  hair,  at  Fraunce's  Tavern,  New  York  City,  the  home  of  the  Sons  of  the 
Revolution. 

(9)  Colonel  Burr's  cradle  is  still  extant,  either  in  Newark  or  the  Oranges.  Mrs.  Zinsser. 

(10)  Even  Colonel  Burr's  false  teeth  have  been  preserved  in  a  small  mahogany  box.  From 
the  size  of  his  dental  bills,  paid  in  January,  1834,  he  was  apparently  quite  constant  in  his  at- 
tendance upon  Dr.  Dodge,  the  eminent  New  York  dentist. 

Dr.  Dodge's  widow  owned  this  denture  and  she  dying,  in  1881,  it  passed  to  her  niece, 
who  in  turn  offered  to  sell  it  to  me. 

(11)  Miss  Grace  Jennings  Perry,  of  New  York  City,  saw  at  The  Inn,  at  Plymouth,  Mass.,  a 
framed  engraving  of  Aaron  Burr  as  a  youth.  This  memo.  October,  1925,  from  Samuel  H. 
Wandell,  Esquire,  and  confirmed  by  Miss  Perry. 

(12)  Dec.  14,  1925.  Dr.  Stuart  Close,  248  Hancock  St.,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,  wrote  that  he  had 
received  from  Miss  Frances  Aymer  Mathews,  a  novelist  and  playright  of  New  York  City,  who 
was  his  friend  and  patient  for  many  years,  her  most  treasured  heirloom,  the  dressing  case  of 
Aaron  Burr.  Miss  Mathews,  who  died  Sept.  10,  1925,  was  the  great-granddaughter  of  Mat- 
thew Livingston  Davis,  the  biographer  of  Burr.  The  dressing  case,  of  heavy  solid  mahogany, 
is  a  gem  of  the  cabinet  maker's  craft  and  is  in  a  perfect  state  of  preservation.  It  is  eleven  inches 
wide,  fifteen  inches  long,  six  inches  deep,  inlaid  with  brass  lines,  bound  at  the  corners  with 
brass  straps  and  corner  pieces,  folding  brass  handles  sunken  in  the  ends,  ornamental  brass 
name  plate  on  top  of  cover,  bearing  the  engraved  letters  "A.  Burr,"  and  an  ornamental  brass 
key  hole  plate.  The  lid,  lined  with  heavy  red  morocco,  contains  the  original  mirror.  The  in- 
terior of  the  case  is  elaborately  constructed  with  a  tray,  jewel  box,  and  many  compartments. 
It  contains  the  original  scent  bottle  (old  fashioned  pressed  or  moulded  glass  with  stopper)  and 
three  opaque  decorated  (hand  painted)  glass  cups. 

In  addition  to  the  dressing  case  Miss  Mathews  bequeathed  to  Dr.  Close  the  following 
likenesses: 


{  103  } 


(a)  Daguerreotype  of  George  Aymar  Webb,  maternal  grandfather  of  Frances  Aymar 
Mathews. 

(b)  Silhouette  (black)  of  George  Aymar  Webb,  endorsed  in  autograph  on  back,  "My 
Grandfather,  F.A.M."  (Frances  Aymar  Mathews.) 

(c)  Miniature  of  John  J.  Aymar  Webb,  of  New  York,  maternal  granduncle  of  F.A.M. , 
signed  on  back  "D.  Ames,  Miniature  painter,  92  Canal  St.,  N.  Y."  (autograph). 

(d)  Miniature  of  Sarah  Emeline  Webb  Mathews,  mother  of  Miss  F.  A.  Mathews. 

(e)  A  pearl-shell  card  case  and  memorandum  book,  bought  in  Paris  in  1850,  with  memo, 
on  wrapper  by  Miss  Mathews;  "Great  Aunt  Fanny's  card  case — Cousin  Arthur  Smith's 
mother,  given  to  Sara  E.  Aymar  Mathews  at  Aunt  Fanny's  death." 

Matthew  L.  Davis,  the  biographer  above,  is  reputed  to  have  had  three  wives  as  well  as 
(according  to  Col.  William  Dusenbury  Craft)  an  illegitimate  son  by  Madam  Green,  who  was 
known  as  Matthew  D.  Green,  a  politician,  who  was  on  the  newspaper  with  Webb,  and  did  not 
dare  write  differently  than  he  was  permitted. 

Matthew  L.  Davis  was  the  father  of  George  Davis  and  a  daughter,  Miss  Davis.  George 
Davis,  just  alluded  to,  married  and  had  Georgianna  Amelia  M.  Davis.  The  Miss  Davis,  al- 
luded to  as  the  child  of  Matthew  L.  Davis,  married  George  Aymar  Webb,  and  they  had  a 
daughter,  Sarah  Emeline  Webb,  who  married  the  auctioneer  Capt.  Daniel  A.  Mathews,  and 
they  were  the  parents  of  Frances  Aymar  Mathews. 

Concerning  the  Webb  family.  A  Mr.  Webb  was  the  father  of  John  J.  Aymar  Webb  and  of 
George  Aymar  Webb,  who  married  Miss  Davis. 

Of  Captain  Daniel  A.  Mathews,  the  art  auctioneer,  a  press  notice  relates:  "He  was  well 
known  among  old  New  Yorkers  as  a  successful  art  auctioneer,  at  one  time  a  wealthy  man,  but 
who  met  with  reverses  in  business,  thus  compelling  his  daughter  to  earn  her  living.  She  may 
have  inherited  a  portion  of  her  talent  from  her  uncle,  Cornelius  Mathews,  who  was  the  author 
of  several  successful  plays,  notable  among  which  was  the  celebrated  drama  Witchcraft." 

Georgiana  Amelia  M.  Davis,  daughter  of  George  Davis,  resided  in  118  Street,  New  York 
City,  with  Frances  Aymar  Mathews,  her  cousin  (niece?),  but  predeceased  her  by  some 
months. 

Dr.  George  E.  Weaver,  36  West  44th  Street,  New  York  City,  a  grandson  of  Matthew  L. 
Davis,  and  Dr.  George  Reed,  of  Nyack,  N.  Y.,  are  both  interested  in  the  personal  history  of 
Matthew  L.  Davis. 

(13)  The  Mooney  copy  of  the  portrait  of  the  Reverend  Aaron  Burr,  which  was  rescued  by 
Judge  Edwards  from  the  Bowrowsons,  was  engraved  prior  to  1882,  for  Van  Rensellaers  Pres- 
byterian Magazine,  and  again  engraved  for  Stearns  First  Presbyterian  Church  of  Newark. 
The  original  was  in  a  dilapidated  condition  and  called  for  heavy  restoration,  which  was  made 
by  the  artist  Mooney,  before  he  made  his  copy  for  Princeton  College.  See  article  on  The  Bow- 
rowsons. 

(14)  Mrs.  H.  R.  Watkins,  of  1627  Collingwood  Avenue,  Apartment  C  9,  Detroit,  Mich.,  is 
reputed  to  possess  a  miniature  of  Theodosia  Burr. 

(15)  Dr.  Job  Sweet,  the  bone  setter  of  Narragansett,  visited  Theodosia  Burr,  at  the  re- 


{  104  } 


quest  of  her  father,  Colonel  Burr,  to  reduce  a  dislocation,  and  Sweet  gives  an  interesting 
account  of  his  arrival  in  New  York  City. 

(16)  An  inventory  of  the  Furnishings  of  Richmond  Hill,  taken  June,  1797,  when  leased  to 
Sir  John  Temple,  is  reproduced  in  the  Quarterly  Bulletin  of  The  New  York  Historical  Society, 
April,  1927.  In  the  Library  there  was  listed:  "1  Elegant  travelling  case  with  tea  Caddies  Bot- 
tles etc."  This  I  believe  was  the  so  called  dressing  case  mentioned  previously  in  Note  12. 

(17)  Mrs.  James  Ross,  of  Montreal,  (deceased  several  years  prior  to  1928),  owned  a  por- 
trait of  Theodosia  Burr,  painted  on  sycamore  wood,  cracked  and  blistered.  She  was  Miss 
Annie  Kerr,  the  daughter  of  Sheriff  John  W.  Kerr,  of  Kingston,  New  York,  who  befriended 
Vanderlyn.  Her  son  Commander  "Jack"  Ross,  of  Montreal,  Ottawa  and  London,  England, 
inherited  her  effects.  He  gave  a  cruiser  to  the  British  Navy  in  the  War  of  1914.  Mrs.  Ross  also 
owned  a  small  "Ariadne,"  about  36  inches  by  24  inches,  a  replica  of  the  large  one  owned  by  the 
Academy  of  Fine  Arts,  Philadelphia.  This  Ariadne  picture  is  now  owned  by  Mr.  Edward  Coy- 
kendall,  of  Kingston,  New  York,  who  owns  several  portraits  by  Vanderlyn. 

(18)  Frederick  Prevost,  Jr.,  had  two  daughters.  Ella  aged  16,  and  Libbie  aged  14,  as  they 
appear  in  a  perhaps  or  even  probably  a  colored  photograph?,  about  fifty  years  old  and  appro- 
priately framed,  about  22  inches  square.  "Uncle  Frederick  Prevost,  his  wife  and  these  two 
beautiful  daughters  were  said  to  be  the  handsomest  family  in  Quincy,  years  ago.  I  am  going 
to  see  a  newly  discovered  very  distant  kinsman  in  our  own  Chicago.  He  is  descended  from  the 
Bartow  Prevost,  brother  of  my  great  grandfather.  They  have  a  picture,  a  painting  of  the  half 
sister,  Theodosia  Burr  and  I  am  very  desirous  of  seeing  it  and  knowing  the  owners.  They  have 
kindly  invited  me  to  come  at  any  time — Mr.  Wm.  Breckinridge  is  an  invalid  and  cannot  come 
out  to  see  me,"  etc.,  etc.  Letter  of  Elizabeth  Shurtleff,  Marengo,  111.,  Dec.  20,  1926. 

(19)  '  Soon  after  his  marriage,  in  1833,  Burr  presented  Chase  with  a  portrait  of  himself 
and  also  with  two  mahogany  drawing  room  chairs,  relics  of  Richmond  Hill,  which  are  still 
owned  by  his  descendants."  William  Dunlap's  Manuscript  Diary,  in  the  New  York  Historical 
Society. 

(20)  Miscalled  portraits  of  Colonel  Burr  and  his  daughter  Theodosia  are  not  uncommon, 
and  some  old  copies  are  claimed  as  originals.  I  have  seen  as  many  as  a  dozen  such  paintings, 
one  half  of  which  the  owners  honestly  believed  were  genuine,  while  the  other  half  the  owners, 
mostly  dealers,  knew  were  impostures. 

(21)  In  1928  the  title  to  the  1796  Vanderlyn  portrait  of  Theodosia  Burr  had  passed  from 
Miss  Laura  J.  Edwards  to  her  sister,  Mrs.  Mary  Morris  Edwards,  widow  of  Charles  F.  Os- 
trander,  residing  with  her  daughter,  Mrs.  Adams,  at  50  West  53rd  Street,  New  York  City. 

(22)  The  "Rector  and  Inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New  York  in  the  Communion  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church"  leased,  in  1797,  to  Aaron  Burr  that  portion  of  the  Church 
property  called  Richmond  Hill,  bounded  on  the  West  by  Greenwich  Street,  on  the  North  by 
Hamersly  St.  formerly  Village  Street,  on  the  East  by  a  dotted  line  A.  B.,  on  the  South  by 
Spring  Street,  formerly  Brannon  Street.  This  Lease  was  subsequently  assigned  to  John  Jacob 
Astor.  The  Mansion  which  stood  on  Charlton  Street,  formerly  Hett  Street,  about  100  feet 
East  of  Varick  Street  was  the  residence  of  Aaron  Burr.  "Map  of  the  North  Division  of  the  Pro- 


{  105  > 


leslant  Episcopal  Church  Properly  and  the  adjoining  properties  of  Aaron  Burr,  Mary  Barclay, 
Anthony  Lispenard  and  others."  May,  1882. 

The  leased  plot  was  rectangular  and  fairly  estimated  was  about  1300  feet  North  and 
South  by  1000  feet  East  and  West,  and  would  cover  twelve  modern  city  blocks.  Through  it 
was  later  run,  East  to  West,  Village  Street  later  called  Hamersly  Street,  Hazard  Street  later 
called  King  Street,  Hett  Street  later  called  Charlton  Street,  Budd  Street  later  called  Vandam 
Street  and  Brannon  Street  later  called  Spring  Street.  While  traversing  it  North  and  South 
were  Greenwich,  Hudson  and  Varick  Streets,  and  a  close  approach  on  the  Eastern  boundary 
to  7th  Avenue,  then  called  Willow  Street  and  later  called  MacDougal  Street.  On  one  block  (as 
now  estimated)  North  of  the  confines  of  Burr's  property  and  three  blocks  from  Burr's  house, 
was  the  "Episcopal  Cemetery,"  bounded  on  the  South  by  Clarkson  Street  and  the  commence- 
ment of  Carmine  Street,  on  the  North  by  Burton  Street  now  Leroy  Street,  and  on  the  West 
by  Hudson  Street,  It  was  in  this  cemetery  I  believe  his  wife,  Theodosia  Bartow  (Prevost),  was 
buried.  She  died  in  1794,  while  Burr  was  occupying  the  Richmond  Hill  mansion,  and  it  would 
naturally  be  the  place  he  would  select.  The  mansion  at  Richmond  Hill  was  built  by  Abraham 
Mortier,  a  British  officer,  about  1760.  It  was  for  a  short  time  the  headquarters  of  Washington, 
was  the  home  of  John  Adams  when  Vice  President,  and  was  leased  by  Burr  in  1793,  who  was 
followed  by  Egbert  Benson.  In  due  time  it  became  a  theatre  which  was  ominously  opened  by 
The  Road  to  Ruin.  Later  it  became  a  music  hall  and  the  home  of  a  circus.  Its  history  is  fully 
given  in  T.  Alston  Brown's  Hihry  oj  the  New  York  Stage,  Professor  Odell's  History  of  the 
New  York  Theatre  and  by  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  in  Stone's  History  of  New  York.  Wandell. 

(23)  Among  the  Sharpies'  Pastels  in  the  Bristol  Art  Gallery  is  one  of  Theodosia  Burr 
Alston.  At  this  writing,  after  a  careful  study  of  the  photograph,  I  cannot  bring  myself  to  ac- 
cept it  as  correctly  labeled,  though  I  am  informed  that  it  has  been  identified  by  some  of  the 
Alstons  living  in  South  Carolina  or  Georgia.  Perhaps  they  have  accepted  it  on  the  strength  of 
the  attribution  rather  than  from  exact  knowledge. 

(24)  A  collection  of  papers  relating  to  John  Vanderlyn,  the  artist,  is  on  loan  at  The  New 
York  Historical  Society.  They  were  assembled  by  the  late  Randall  R.  Hoes,  Chaplain  in  the 
United  States  Navy,  a  one-time  resident  of  Kingston,  New  York,  and  an  accurate  and  indus- 
trious genealogist  and  historian.  Among  these  papers  is  a  manuscript  history  of  the  Life  of 
John  Vanderlyn  by  Robert  Gosman,  Esquire. 

(25)  I  have  availed  myself  of  the  vast  resources  of  The  New  York  Historical  Society 
which  are  always  at  the  disposal  of  students.  This  institution  holds  a  foremost  rank  among 
educational  bodies. 

(26)  Judge  A.  T.  Clearwater,  Kingston,  New  York,  has  been  a  collector  of  Vanderlyn 
relics  and  I  am  indebted  to  him  for  many  courtesies. 

(27)  John  Vanderlyn  painted  Theodosia  Burr's  eye  about  its  natural  size.  It  was  then 
mounted  in  a  gold  band  for  use  as  a  brooch.  It  still  remains  in  Kingston,  New  York,  in  the 
possession  of  a  lady. 


{  106  > 


